UK General Election/Politics

by Roller_Coaster Wed 3 May - 16:22

First topic message reminder :

Here's a possible thread for it all, despite the lack of political input from me to start it!

Mods if you want to/can cut and paste the recent obviously political "discussions" from the Anything Goes, here might serve?

by super_realist Fri 26 May - 7:25

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
beninho wrote:His policies are good, and they are wiping the floor with the tories during the campaign in my view. Its interesting that the polls are closing the gap. I saw a video on twitter from 2003 of him saying that bombing in Iraq will just cause problems, and he has been proven right, obviously.

His policies are awful pandering to the common man with nothing to back them up, scrapping tuition fees is a horrendous and diabolical idea but it's easy to promise the world when nobody thinks you'll win. If by some miracle he does get elected you'll see a very sharp u-turn as he and McDonnell both know they can't follow through with their manifesto.

and now the plank is saying that foreign policy is to blame. We talk about May digging a hole, now Steptoe is.

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 7:56

I reckon our foreign policy has reduced terrorism. picard

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 26 May - 7:59

Diggers wrote:Though it may be worth noting that I'm 50. You are judging my intellect based on an exam I would have taken around 40 years ago.
You've done a great job of highlighting a fundamental flaw with the grammar system. Well done you, even without any kind of basic level of justification you've actually made a relevant point.

It's not a fundamental flaw at all as it's relevant to that child at that time, most of those who complain about Grammar schools couldn't have gone and then cry of inequality. Inequality to me is holding a bright kid back into mediocrity so that those who can't be bothered or simply aren't smart enough don't feel bad, I've yet to hear any coherent reason why we should scrap them. Had I gone to a comprehensive school I'd have been mercilessly bullied for being different (intelligent), I got pushed every day at my school to fulfil my potential something that doesn't happen at other schools.

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 26 May - 8:00

MontysMerkin wrote:I reckon our foreign policy has reduced terrorism.

I'm more inclined to blame the terrorists myself and viewpoints like this sicken me.

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 8:08

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:I reckon our foreign policy has reduced terrorism.

I'm more inclined to blame the terrorists myself and viewpoints like this sicken me.

Shows a lack of logical thinking on your part.

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 8:10

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
Diggers wrote:Though it may be worth noting that I'm 50. You are judging my intellect based on an exam I would have taken around 40 years ago.
You've done a great job of highlighting a fundamental flaw with the grammar system. Well done you, even without any kind of basic level of justification you've actually made a relevant point.

It's not a fundamental flaw at all as it's relevant to that child at that time, most of those who complain about Grammar schools couldn't have gone and then cry of inequality. Inequality to me is holding a bright kid back into mediocrity so that those who can't be bothered or simply aren't smart enough don't feel bad, I've yet to hear any coherent reason why we should scrap them. Had I gone to a comprehensive school I'd have been mercilessly bullied for being different (intelligent), I got pushed every day at my school to fulfil my potential something that doesn't happen at other schools.

I also went to a grammar and couldn't wait to get out. A breeding ground for self aggrandising arses with bloated opinions of their self worth.

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 26 May - 8:12

MontysMerkin wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:I reckon our foreign policy has reduced terrorism.

I'm more inclined to blame the terrorists myself and viewpoints like this sicken me.
Shows a lack of logical thinking on your part.

I've no interest in trying to politically point score after a terrorist attack and shows what kind of lowlife you really are.

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 26 May - 8:13

MontysMerkin wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:
Diggers wrote:Though it may be worth noting that I'm 50. You are judging my intellect based on an exam I would have taken around 40 years ago.
You've done a great job of highlighting a fundamental flaw with the grammar system. Well done you, even without any kind of basic level of justification you've actually made a relevant point.

It's not a fundamental flaw at all as it's relevant to that child at that time, most of those who complain about Grammar schools couldn't have gone and then cry of inequality. Inequality to me is holding a bright kid back into mediocrity so that those who can't be bothered or simply aren't smart enough don't feel bad, I've yet to hear any coherent reason why we should scrap them. Had I gone to a comprehensive school I'd have been mercilessly bullied for being different (intelligent), I got pushed every day at my school to fulfil my potential something that doesn't happen at other schools.
I also went to a grammar and couldn't wait to get out. A breeding ground for self aggrandising arses with bloated opinions of their self worth.

Nobody was forcing you to stay were they which suggests to me you're talking garbage.

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 8:19

Yep I knew what was going on at 12 years old. Had a really good handle on the whole of the UKs education system. Your inferences are consistently wide of the mark.

by super_realist Fri 26 May - 8:27

MontysMerkin wrote:I reckon our foreign policy has reduced terrorism.

So we shouldn't have got involved in stopping genocide in East Timor because it might offend a few carpet sniffers?

East Timor was the motivation for the Bali bombings, but you probably didn't know that.

How about Denmark? So now we are saying we can't express ourselves incase it offends a backward and primitive religion?

Maybe the Kenya Shopping Mall attack was due to foreign policy of Kenya and not religious nutjobs, or the kidnapping of all those girls. Yeah, all foreign policy.

I suppose Charlie Hebdo was about foreign policy too?

If it was about Foreign policy, they'd be attacking America primarily, NOT Belgium, Spain, Denmark and Germany.

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 8:34

The Joint Intelligence Committee warned Tony Blair in 2003 that invading Iraq would increase the risk of terrorism in the UK:

"The threat from Al Qaida will increase at the onset of any military action against Iraq… The worldwide threat from other Islamist terrorist groups and individuals will increase significantly."

I guess they should have consulted you instead?

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 8:36

Britain, Belgium, and Denmark have joined the U.S.-led coalition of nations that are launching air strikes on the Islamic State (IS) extremist group in Iraq.

Please, it's all out there, just do a little research.

by super_realist Fri 26 May - 8:47

Ha ha ha ha. So we shouldn't strike against a repulsive regime which is causing people misery?

Are you having a laugh?

I'm not saying Foreign Policy doesn't have an influence, but the raison d'etre of IS is to set up an Islamic Caliphate, it's not about reprisals for Foreign Policy.

So why is it they aren't attacking America again?

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 8:51

super_realist wrote:Ha ha ha ha. So we shouldn't strike against a repulsive regime which is causing people misery?

Are you having a laugh?

I'm not saying Foreign Policy doesn't have an influence, but the raison d'etre of IS is to set up an Islamic Caliphate, it's not about reprisals for Foreign Policy.

So why is it they aren't attacking America again?

I didn't realise you cared so much for your common man, or only when it suits?
TBH I couldn't give a flying f#ck what they do in their own country, just as you would expect them to keep their noses out of yours.
Change will never work if you try and force people to change, it has to come from themselves.

IS emerged from an extremist faction originally founded in 1999 that started to gain traction after the 2003 Iraqi invasion led by the U.S.
They would have struggled to recruit followers without the invasions - men, who's families and homes and cities and way of life have been destroyed by outsiders, are easy to recruit.
Should it be the other way round I could see you with a tin of paint writing 'Romanes eunt domus' in the middle of the night.

by super_realist Fri 26 May - 8:54

I don't give a flying toss generally, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good reason to strike against them.

Change has to come from itself? In India they used to throw the surviving wife on the funeral pyre following her husbands death. British involvement put stop to this repulsive "culture". Is that not a good thing?

by Diggers Fri 26 May - 8:54

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
Diggers wrote:Though it may be worth noting that I'm 50. You are judging my intellect based on an exam I would have taken around 40 years ago.
You've done a great job of highlighting a fundamental flaw with the grammar system. Well done you, even without any kind of basic level of justification you've actually made a relevant point.

It's not a fundamental flaw at all as it's relevant to that child at that time, most of those who complain about Grammar schools couldn't have gone and then cry of inequality. Inequality to me is holding a bright kid back into mediocrity so that those who can't be bothered or simply aren't smart enough don't feel bad, I've yet to hear any coherent reason why we should scrap them. Had I gone to a comprehensive school I'd have been mercilessly bullied for being different (intelligent), I got pushed every day at my school to fulfil my potential something that doesn't happen at other schools.

I agree you would have been bullied, but not for being intelligent. A coherent reason for scrapping grammars is they are set up to advance middle class children, if you had any understaning of how the education actually works you might understand that. It's a viewpoint backed by lots of head teachers - most of whom probably went to grammar school.
Anyway, can you justify the numbers and policy for scrapping free KS1 school meals and bringing in breakfasts. Still not seen any reasoned debate, just hyperbole and anecdotal twaddle.

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 9:00

super_realist wrote:I don't give a flying toss generally, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good reason to strike against them.

Change has to come from itself? In India they used to throw the surviving wife on the funeral pyre following her husbands death. British involvement put stop to this repulsive "culture". Is that not a good thing?

What they do with their missus is up to them, although I obviously don't condone it, I wouldn't say it was a good reason to invade a country, kill thousands of people, subjugate the rest, take all their natural resources, then eff off and leave em in the Poopie, no.

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 26 May - 9:01

I'm an elitist and I'm all for furthering the lives of middle class children, they should not be held back to appease the lower classes, you're line of thinking is well off and you seem to think I'd be against these things. I'm for myself first and foremost, I'm for my daughter and my family, I'm not for those who have achieved nothing and expect the same as those that have.

by super_realist Fri 26 May - 9:05

MontysMerkin wrote:
super_realist wrote:I don't give a flying toss generally, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good reason to strike against them.

Change has to come from itself? In India they used to throw the surviving wife on the funeral pyre following her husbands death. British involvement put stop to this repulsive "culture". Is that not a good thing?
What they do with their missus is up to them, although I obviously don't condone it, I wouldn't say it was a good reason to invade a country, kill thousands of people, subjugate the rest, take all their natural resources, then eff off and leave em in the Poopie, no.

Yeah, we should have just let Hitler march all over Europe too and exterminate anyone he didn't like, we wouldn't want to offend him by helping those countries out would we?

What countries are we "taking all the natural resources from?" Name any country which is worse off from Foreign investment?

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 9:06

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm an elitist and I'm all for furthering the lives of middle class children, they should not be held back to appease the lower classes, you're line of thinking is well off and you seem to think I'd be against these things. I'm for myself first and foremost, I'm for my daughter and my family, I'm not for those who have achieved nothing and expect the same as those that have.

Christ, you've bred? I thought you must be still at school!

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 9:07

super_realist wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:
super_realist wrote:I don't give a flying toss generally, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good reason to strike against them.

Change has to come from itself? In India they used to throw the surviving wife on the funeral pyre following her husbands death. British involvement put stop to this repulsive "culture". Is that not a good thing?
What they do with their missus is up to them, although I obviously don't condone it, I wouldn't say it was a good reason to invade a country, kill thousands of people, subjugate the rest, take all their natural resources, then eff off and leave em in the Poopie, no.

Yeah, we should have just let Hitler march all over Europe too and exterminate anyone he didn't like, we wouldn't want to offend him by helping those countries out would we?

What countries are we "taking all the natural resources from?" Name any country which is worse off from Foreign investment?

If he hadn't come to our doorstep, we would have quite happily let him, have you not heard of appeasement?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire picard

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 26 May - 9:10

Our doorstep being the Ardennes forest.

by super_realist Fri 26 May - 9:12

We reacted long before he came to our doorstep, unlike America who DID sit on their hands until they were threatened.

Again, what country have we TAKEN resources from? All resources ARE PAID FOR.

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 9:17

super_realist wrote:We reacted long before he came to our doorstep, unlike America who DID sit on their hands until they were threatened.

Again, what country have we TAKEN resources from? All resources ARE PAID FOR.

We reacted when Hitler made a pact with Russia and invaded Poland, from where they could have easily controlled all of Europe. Up until that time we turned a blind eye to what they were doing as well you know.

Koh-i-Noor from india?
You name it, we nicked it.

by super_realist Fri 26 May - 9:25

Is that it? A bloody diamond? You were inferring it was about oil as well you know.

Again, Poland isn't our bloody doorstep, so why did we interfere? We shouldn't if we had your attitude.

by Diggers Fri 26 May - 9:33

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm an elitist and I'm all for furthering the lives of middle class children, they should not be held back to appease the lower classes, you're line of thinking is well off and you seem to think I'd be against these things. I'm for myself first and foremost, I'm for my daughter and my family, I'm not for those who have achieved nothing and expect the same as those that have.

Blah, blah, rhetoric, no facts.....,boring.

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 9:42

super_realist wrote:Is that it? A bloody diamond? You were inferring it was about oil as well you know.

Again, Poland isn't our bloody doorstep, so why did we interfere? We shouldn't if we had your attitude.

Not really but seeing as you brought it up....
You've kept your humanitarian approach well hidden, you must be a man of the cloth, surely?

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 26 May - 9:43

Diggers wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm an elitist and I'm all for furthering the lives of middle class children, they should not be held back to appease the lower classes, you're line of thinking is well off and you seem to think I'd be against these things. I'm for myself first and foremost, I'm for my daughter and my family, I'm not for those who have achieved nothing and expect the same as those that have.

Blah, blah, rhetoric, no facts.....,boring.

Not got anything to actually say then, if you'd gone to a better school you might be able to formulate a better argument.

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 9:47

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
Diggers wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm an elitist and I'm all for furthering the lives of middle class children, they should not be held back to appease the lower classes, you're line of thinking is well off and you seem to think I'd be against these things. I'm for myself first and foremost, I'm for my daughter and my family, I'm not for those who have achieved nothing and expect the same as those that have.

Blah, blah, rhetoric, no facts.....,boring.

Not got anything to actually say then, if you'd gone to a better school you might be able to formulate a better argument.

Yeah but I bet my dads bigger than your dad oh yeah

by beninho Fri 26 May - 9:47

It seems pretty obvious, that the root cause of the current crisis, was the Iraq invasion, carried out by America with support from the UK and numerous other countries.

9/11 was an attack against American foreign policy which was felt to be anti Muslim.

I dont quite see the link between the current issues and the world wars.

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 9:49

beninho wrote:It seems pretty obvious, that the root cause of the current crisis, was the Iraq invasion, carried out by America with support from the UK and numerous other countries.

9/11 was an attack against American foreign policy which was felt to be anti Muslim.

I dont quite see the link between the current issues and the world wars.

Doesn't seem obvious to some people.
Soops brought up Hitler - Godwins....

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 26 May - 9:51

Diggers wrote:Yeah, scrapping tuition fees is horrendous. Bringing back grammars and scrapping free school meals (whilst blatantly lying about costings) is on the other hand fantastic.

It's all very well to scrap them, and I'm not sure they work, but an honest discussion must be had with the public about the cost if they do this. How much would it add per year, to say general taxation, if they got rid of fees and funded through taxation/grants? In addition, >80% of the central HE Government grant to all HE institutions has been ripped out of the system over the last 10-15 years. The Universities have to be able to function and if money isn't coming from fees, where else?

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 26 May - 9:53

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
Diggers wrote:Yeah, scrapping tuition fees is horrendous. Bringing back grammars and scrapping free school meals (whilst blatantly lying about costings) is on the other hand fantastic.

First sensible thing you've said. Scrapping tuition fees is horrendous and bringing back grammar schools is fantastic, i'm guessing you lacked the intellect to get into one?

If you're going to respond like that, you won't be responding for a while. Keep it impersonal and debate the point please.

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 26 May - 9:53

MontysMerkin wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:
Diggers wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm an elitist and I'm all for furthering the lives of middle class children, they should not be held back to appease the lower classes, you're line of thinking is well off and you seem to think I'd be against these things. I'm for myself first and foremost, I'm for my daughter and my family, I'm not for those who have achieved nothing and expect the same as those that have.

Blah, blah, rhetoric, no facts.....,boring.

Not got anything to actually say then, if you'd gone to a better school you might be able to formulate a better argument.
Yeah but I bet my dads bigger than your dad

Mine clearly wanted me to achieve in life whereas yours has instilled a 'give it to me for free' attitude.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 26 May - 9:55

super_realist wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:
beninho wrote:His policies are good, and they are wiping the floor with the tories during the campaign in my view. Its interesting that the polls are closing the gap. I saw a video on twitter from 2003 of him saying that bombing in Iraq will just cause problems, and he has been proven right, obviously.

His policies are awful pandering to the common man with nothing to back them up, scrapping tuition fees is a horrendous and diabolical idea but it's easy to promise the world when nobody thinks you'll win. If by some miracle he does get elected you'll see a very sharp u-turn as he and McDonnell both know they can't follow through with their manifesto.

and now the plank is saying that foreign policy is to blame. We talk about May digging a hole, now Steptoe is.

Sorry S_R. You're incredibly naive if you think what we do re. foreign policy doesn't have an effect. There's >100 years that can be used to justify these suicidal nihilists. It's not all our foreign policy, but to have a knee-jerk response that what Corbyn is going to say has no bearing is like sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "La la la, I'm not listening to you!".

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 26 May - 9:57

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:I reckon our foreign policy has reduced terrorism.

I'm more inclined to blame the terrorists myself and viewpoints like this sicken me.

You see things as too black/white. Give it time...

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 26 May - 9:57

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:
Hammersmith harrier wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:I reckon our foreign policy has reduced terrorism.

I'm more inclined to blame the terrorists myself and viewpoints like this sicken me.
Shows a lack of logical thinking on your part.

I've no interest in trying to politically point score after a terrorist attack and shows what kind of lowlife you really are.

Seriously, wind your neck in.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 26 May - 9:58

super_realist wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:I reckon our foreign policy has reduced terrorism.

So we shouldn't have got involved in stopping genocide in East Timor because it might offend a few carpet sniffers?

East Timor was the motivation for the Bali bombings, but you probably didn't know that.

How about Denmark? So now we are saying we can't express ourselves incase it offends a backward and primitive religion?

Maybe the Kenya Shopping Mall attack was due to foreign policy of Kenya and not religious nutjobs, or the kidnapping of all those girls. Yeah, all foreign policy.

I suppose Charlie Hebdo was about foreign policy too?

If it was about Foreign policy, they'd be attacking America primarily, NOT Belgium, Spain, Denmark and Germany.

Your examples are muddled I'm afraid.

by Hammersmith harrier Fri 26 May - 9:59

It's an opinion and I do find it sickening that some try to point score after a terrorist attack.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 26 May - 10:00

super_realist wrote:Ha ha ha ha. So we shouldn't strike against a repulsive regime which is causing people misery?

Are you having a laugh?

I'm not saying Foreign Policy doesn't have an influence, but the raison d'etre of IS is to set up an Islamic Caliphate, it's not about reprisals for Foreign Policy.

So why is it they aren't attacking America again?

Umm, let me think. Could it be there's no easy route for jihadis to travel from the Middle East to America?

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 26 May - 10:01

MontysMerkin wrote:
super_realist wrote:Ha ha ha ha. So we shouldn't strike against a repulsive regime which is causing people misery?

Are you having a laugh?

I'm not saying Foreign Policy doesn't have an influence, but the raison d'etre of IS is to set up an Islamic Caliphate, it's not about reprisals for Foreign Policy.

So why is it they aren't attacking America again?
I didn't realise you cared so much for your common man, or only when it suits?
TBH I couldn't give a flying f#ck what they do in their own country, just as you would expect them to keep their noses out of yours.
Change will never work if you try and force people to change, it has to come from themselves.

IS emerged from an extremist faction originally founded in 1999 that started to gain traction after the 2003 Iraqi invasion led by the U.S.
They would have struggled to recruit followers without the invasions - men, who's families and homes and cities and way of life have been destroyed by outsiders, are easy to recruit.
Should it be the other way round I could see you with a tin of paint writing 'Romanes eunt domus' in the middle of the night.

Yes, I can see it now. Great film that...

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 26 May - 10:03

super_realist wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:
super_realist wrote:I don't give a flying toss generally, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good reason to strike against them.

Change has to come from itself? In India they used to throw the surviving wife on the funeral pyre following her husbands death. British involvement put stop to this repulsive "culture". Is that not a good thing?
What they do with their missus is up to them, although I obviously don't condone it, I wouldn't say it was a good reason to invade a country, kill thousands of people, subjugate the rest, take all their natural resources, then eff off and leave em in the Poopie, no.

Yeah, we should have just let Hitler march all over Europe too and exterminate anyone he didn't like, we wouldn't want to offend him by helping those countries out would we?

What countries are we "taking all the natural resources from?" Name any country which is worse off from Foreign investment?

I think he's referring to historical 'Empire' era stuff.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 26 May - 10:04

super_realist wrote:We reacted long before he came to our doorstep, unlike America who DID sit on their hands until they were threatened.

Again, what country have we TAKEN resources from? All resources ARE PAID FOR.

I suspect you'll find we had Treaties that required us to take action. Same as WWI.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 26 May - 10:08

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's an opinion and I do find it sickening that some try to point score after a terrorist attack.

That's fine. I understand that completely, although I'm not sure he was trying to point score. Emotive subject, but try to avoid the 'lowlife' accusations etc though.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 26 May - 10:26

Some cold water for both main parties, but I doubt their respective voters will notice:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40057115

The IFS is spot on; propose what you like, but make a proper case for doing so and be honest about it. I won't hold my breath that it'll ever happen.

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 10:26

navyblueshorts wrote:
super_realist wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:
super_realist wrote:I don't give a flying toss generally, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good reason to strike against them.

Change has to come from itself? In India they used to throw the surviving wife on the funeral pyre following her husbands death. British involvement put stop to this repulsive "culture". Is that not a good thing?
What they do with their missus is up to them, although I obviously don't condone it, I wouldn't say it was a good reason to invade a country, kill thousands of people, subjugate the rest, take all their natural resources, then eff off and leave em in the Poopie, no.

Yeah, we should have just let Hitler march all over Europe too and exterminate anyone he didn't like, we wouldn't want to offend him by helping those countries out would we?

What countries are we "taking all the natural resources from?" Name any country which is worse off from Foreign investment?
I think he's referring to historical 'Empire' era stuff.

The thing is, this 'historical' stuff is still having a massive impact today, although some would scoff and say get over it.

From wikipedia (not the most trusted source I know but there is a kernel of truth here):
Political boundaries drawn by the British did not always reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions, contributing to conflicts in formerly colonised areas. The British Empire was also responsible for large migrations of peoples. Millions left the British Isles, with the founding settler populations of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand coming mainly from Britain and Ireland. Tensions remain between the white settler populations of these countries and their indigenous minorities, and between white settler minorities and indigenous majorities in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Settlers in Ireland from Great Britain have left their mark in the form of divided nationalist and unionist communities in Northern Ireland. Millions of people moved to and from British colonies, with large numbers of Indians emigrating to other parts of the empire, such as Malaysia and Fiji, and Chinese people to Malaysia, Singapore and the Caribbean.The demographics of Britain itself was changed after the Second World War owing to immigration to Britain from its former colonies.

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 10:32

navyblueshorts wrote:Some cold water for both main parties, but I doubt their respective voters will notice:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40057115

The IFS is spot on; propose what you like, but make a proper case for doing so and be honest about it. I won't hold my breath that it'll ever happen.

Just be careful believing think tanks of both colours...
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/05/11/do-workers-really-pay-a-companys-corporation-tax-bill/
Interesting read about the flaws in their thinking (backed by some economists)

by Diggers Fri 26 May - 10:33

navyblueshorts wrote:
Diggers wrote:Yeah, scrapping tuition fees is horrendous. Bringing back grammars and scrapping free school meals (whilst blatantly lying about costings) is on the other hand fantastic.
It's all very well to scrap them, and I'm not sure they work, but an honest discussion must be had with the public about the cost if they do this. How much would it add per year, to say general taxation, if they got rid of fees and funded through taxation/grants? In addition, >80% of the central HE Government grant to all HE institutions has been ripped out of the system over the last 10-15 years. The Universities have to be able to function and if money isn't coming from fees, where else?

I would means test the fees Navy, I don't really agree it's a great universal idea. I do know universities generate vast amounts from overseas tuition fees, my wife did the HR for a company who made a lot of money doing that. Also research funding from industry is a big revenue stream. How much overall, I don't know.
It's just the use of the words diabolical and horrendous for the policy that is OTT IMO, with clearly no actual ability from the poster to reason based on knowledge of the subject. Weak.

by MontysMerkin Fri 26 May - 10:41

It's the new way for education but it should really be not for profit. After what Coventry Uni has started it's only a matter of time before the whole greedy pack of 'em are doing it.

I'm doing some research into medical publishing at the mo, Elsevier turn over $2.5bn annually with a 37% profit margin. Those sort of numbers would make anyone wince, unless you're the venture capitalist owners...

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 26 May - 11:28

Diggers wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Diggers wrote:Yeah, scrapping tuition fees is horrendous. Bringing back grammars and scrapping free school meals (whilst blatantly lying about costings) is on the other hand fantastic.
It's all very well to scrap them, and I'm not sure they work, but an honest discussion must be had with the public about the cost if they do this. How much would it add per year, to say general taxation, if they got rid of fees and funded through taxation/grants? In addition, >80% of the central HE Government grant to all HE institutions has been ripped out of the system over the last 10-15 years. The Universities have to be able to function and if money isn't coming from fees, where else?

I would means test the fees Navy, I don't really agree it's a great universal idea. I do know universities generate vast amounts from overseas tuition fees, my wife did the HR for a company who made a lot of money doing that. Also research funding from industry is a big revenue stream. How much overall, I don't know.
It's just the use of the words diabolical and horrendous for the policy that is OTT IMO, with clearly no actual ability from the poster to reason based on knowledge of the subject. Weak.

Overseas tuition fees can generate a bit for some course/Faculties, but not many; there aren't significant enough overseas students on many courses, particularly a lot of the STEM areas. Research funding contributes nothing to the tuition of undergrads; it might contribute to HE overheads, but I'm pretty sure that just vanishes into the ether (read: research infrastructure and other such things) and certainly doesn't help with the education side of things, except by accident.

by Sponsored content