David Cameron on rugby

by ruggerbyplayer Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:46 pm

First topic message reminder :

This clip is popular on the BBC news website today. Thought people might appreciate it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13697942

by geoff998rugby Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:37 pm

BATH_BTGOG wrote:She really even bothers to go - Mary on the on the hand support(er)s her team

??????

What?

Simple - 1 (Mary) goes to virtually all home games, the other (Liz) really goes to home games. Usually its her grandchildren or, if Scotland are playing, her daughter.

by greybeard Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:39 pm

Do you mean rarely?

by geoff998rugby Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:42 pm

I do indeed :run2:

Comes from typing too quickly at work

by BATH_BTGOG Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:48 pm

OMG

by ruggerbyplayer Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:31 pm

ML wrote:
ruggerbyplayer wrote:.................... He's moderate, modern and pragmatic. ................

hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Do you repeat that to yourself whilst he you and everyone else in the country?

No I genuinely believe it. He's a moderate bloke and he runs a moderate modern party. He isn't humping the country. He's just rectifying Labour's economic excesses. I'm a student and I think the Coalition have introduced a brilliant tuition fees scheme. The richest pay £9k so that the poorest can pay nothing. Sounds good to me.

by geoff998rugby Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:04 pm

Thank you for the party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative Party.
You clearly love old Etonians randy

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:05 pm

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:13 pm

Hi all,

Can we keep some rugby in the posts please. We've now heard most people's opinions on the relative merits of various UK parties and politicians (including mine Wink

).

Its very unlikely anyone will change anyone's mind on the matter, and this is a rugby board NOT a politics one. I'm sure there's dozens of politics boards out there (no I can't be bothered looking for them).

Anything too far off topic in this thread from here on in will be deleted.

Or worse, modified to include really boring pontifications on local authority politics in New Zealand. Or possibly Outer Mongolia. Wink

Cheers everyone,

K devil

by BATH_BTGOG Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:38 pm

But the titles 'David Cameron on rugby' so it must be political!

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:45 pm

BATH_BTGOG wrote: But the titles 'David Cameron on rugby' so it must be political!

The key part there is "on rugby" Smile

.

by BATH_BTGOG Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:55 pm

or David Cameron! boxing

by welshy824 Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:35 pm

ruggerbyplayer wrote:David Cameron is a legend.

yes i mean look at all the amazing things him and his coalition have done....
oh yeah they havent.
they raised uni costs.
no improvement in banking
people losing jobs
messing up/privatising the NHS...

i rekon david cameron was the waterboy for the rugby team for eton, oxford or whever he went for his private upbringing

by johnpartle Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:51 pm

geoff998rugby wrote:Least she's Irish - unlike that German Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg you have in charge

The Queen has a not inconsiderable amount of Irish blood in her from her mother's side (William & Harry even more from their mother). Apparently she's descended from the Dal Cais and Eoganacht dynasties of Munster, the Ui Neill High Kings and Brian Boru. Her most recent direct relatives lived in Dublin, Co. Kilkenny, Co. Meath & Co. Tyrone.

Like any good modern multicultural Briton, she's got bloodlines from a number of countries. You could argue she's as much Danish as German (her children even more so, Philip was a Danish & Greek prince).

by **Notch** Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:33 pm

ruggerbyplayer wrote:No I genuinely believe it. He's a moderate bloke and he runs a moderate modern party. He isn't humping the country. He's just rectifying Labour's economic excesses. I'm a student and I think the Coalition have introduced a brilliant tuition fees scheme. The richest pay £9k so that the poorest can pay nothing. Sounds good to me.

Well, sorry to have to bring politics onto a rugby board but it sounds like an explanation is needed here. Here's how this Tory education policy will play out over the next few years.

OutOfTouchToff wrote:Okay, so £9000 a year. Thats what student loans are going to be in England. So who pays that? Well, the loan is from the Government of course. So... tripling the amount of money spent the Government on each individual student then? Fine, it's not like there's an austerity drive. What's that? Oh, we can't afford it... well if the Universities are getting that we'll cut their funding. Okay, so academics are losing their jobs as a result of our cuts and due to all the money in academia being allocated on the basis of research the standard of teaching is falling dramatically. Lucky we are tripling student debt to try and (not quite) balance the books! They'll really get value for money with this... yes, I know we have a massive liability on their loans but once they graduate and get into jobs they'll pay us back so it's not a big... hmmm. Job market depressed? Lack of opportunities for a whole generation? Low quality teaching at undergraduate level debasing quality of degrees and damaging employability? Uhhh, hmm. Well... if they aren't working they aren't paying us back... hmm, that's a poser. We're really out of pocket here. I'm sure they'll find jobs before we have to admit we've spectacularly miss-stepped and we have a disaster on our hands. Oh, some have found jobs. Great. What's that; they've moved overseas? So, we have to go back to the electorate and admit we've failed to keep higher education strong in this country AND we're not getting enough of those whopping £9000 a year student loans payed back? Oh no, Labour are back in power.

Well, time to protest from opposition about the atrocious state of our Universities then!

It's nothing but social vandalism.

by WillyGilly Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:06 pm

Politics on 606 it's the day I've longed for!

Whilst you may disapprove of the governments policies (quite correctly), you can't just choose to ignore the reason behind it (massive budget deficit). Fact is like it or not we would have gone down the same route as Greece and Ireland, like it or not we had to make cutbacks. Not politician will ever cater to everyone's needs, but at the current time I believe DC is just about and no more, the right man for the job. Certainly more than that pillar box miliband who is so far left I worry he'll do himself an injury.

Notch social vandalism is a huge metaphor good job we're now finished uni eh?

by johnpartle Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:15 pm

I don't want to get in the way of a good rant, but there are a number of factual errors in that passage. Not least that the £9000 isn't a loan. The person you are quoting hasn't grasped the financial structuring that will be involved.

Aside from that and the slightly ridiculous suggestion that more graduates won't have jobs than will, with the fees not coming into effect till the end of 2012, most degrees lasting 3 years and then it being a couple of years till the average graduate salary gets above the payment threshold, if England still has a depressed job market by then, there will be far greater economic concerns than the beginning of payment of the fees.

I'm in favour of a free university education again, but until that happens (it quite probably never will), the Browne Review based changes are an improvement on the current system.

by welshy824 Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:41 pm

ruggerbyplayer wrote:No I genuinely believe it. He's a moderate bloke and he runs a moderate modern party. He isn't humping the country. He's just rectifying Labour's economic excesses. I'm a student and I think the Coalition have introduced a brilliant tuition fees scheme. The richest pay £9k so that the poorest can pay nothing. Sounds good to me.

a student thinks it is brillaint that the cost of him/her is going to uni is rising?????????
and they did a survey and apparently a poor students fees are about £800 less a year than a rich student- not really much is it

and rectifying labours issues, if labour were so bad why were they kept in power for 13 years????
and after 1 year of coalition the polls show how people in hindsight would much rather labour be in power with a long period of recovery rather than tories idea of cut cut cut cut privatise cut cut make rich people even richer cut cut cut bend over poor people cut cut cut....
it doesnt work and last time tories were in power they destroyed the coal industry, privatised the NHS and sold council houses for like 1p...

basically labour all the way.
(oh to keep it rugby wise)
nambia for the world cup...

by **Notch** Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:52 pm

It was a slightly tongue-in-cheek rant, exaggerated for comic effect, with a grain of truth. I sincerely doubt that more graduates will be out of a job at that time than in. Or that more people will leave the country either than stay, for that matter. That doesn't stand up to scrutiny. But I also sincerely doubt that the same high percentage of people will be able to begin repaying their loans as quickly as in the past. I also believe people will begin looking for opportunities elsewhere.

As for the BR proposing improvements! Tell that to the people actually working in the Universities john. You might get the odd VC who supports the Browne Review but support is generally thin elsewhere... point me to the improvements. The Browne Review in itself would have removed the cap, which would have pushed the amount of debt incurred by studying at a truly elite University to astronomical levels.

What would have been much better than the BR is if we sat down and had a serious discussion about how truly worthwhile University places we can afford to fund without shifting a huge mountain of debt onto students, increasing the governments liability and undermining the quality of undergraduate teaching.

They are panicking already with this; they didn't anticipate every University going up to the cap of £9000 right away. It's going to hit them in the pockets and hit them hard. They'll be gambling on the recovery alright. Gambling on boom and bust, just like we always have! Isn't life great... Wink

by WillyGilly Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:02 pm

Welshy you're focusing in on the uni fees, they resulted from the Browne report which Notch eludes to above. I don't know if it's been mentioned previously, but do you know which party commissioned the Browne report? Labour. It's all very well for them to talk the reforms down and vote against it in opposition, but do you genuinely believe that if they were still in power they would have entirely ignored the recomendations in it?

Russia for the world cup...

by **Notch** Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:05 pm

That's the thing lads, there's zero chance I would ever vote for either of Labour or the Tories if given the chance, and you can add the Lib Dems to that list to boot.

Of course, given I live in a constituency where none of those parties nominate candidates... bring on further devolution. Our local politicians may be incompetent, but at least we get to vote on their policies Shocked

by Shifty Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:07 pm

You notice the Plaid Cymru rabble causing problems in the corner there when rugby is mentioned!
Diplomatically answered by the Prime Minister there though, fair play.

by johnpartle Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:54 pm

Notch wrote:point me to the improvements

For me the big improvements are no fees upfront, payment of fees versus repayment of the loans starts at a £6000 higher salary and payments will be £540/year less. Most graduates will never have to pay the full amount and most of the downsides principly affect the more well-off.

welshy824 wrote:if labour were so bad why were they kept in power for 13 years????

Does the same logic apply to the 18 years (4 consecutive general election wins) of the Tories and utterly ludicrous 8 years of George W. Bush?

by welshy824 Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:57 pm

when was the tory consecutive wins?
and the 8 years of bush... well thats the AMERICANS for you Wink

but seriously as a 16 year old planning on going to uni, nothing that the conservatives have done yet will improve my life, the course i would like to is competative enough and cutting uni places makes it harder then if i i do get in it will be alot of money to pay. the plans of privatising the NHS which doctors themselves dont want. if the conservatives need to do anything its get more hospitals and cut down waiting lists by employing more people. i mean i am waiting for orthapedics appointment for 4 weeks (which isint that long) due to a dislocated shoulder (through RUGBY) and its causing me discomfort...

however my views will be different to others due to my background, and we all have our reasons for voting(or in my case wanting to vote) for a certain party

by johnpartle Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:42 am

welshy824 wrote:when was the tory consecutive wins?

'79, '83, '87 & '92. The first 18 years of my life. I was the first year of university students to be affected by Labour introducing tuition fees. I would have preferred the current system.

Personally, I don't vote on a party basis, but on a candidate basis. I'd prefer to see more independent MPs in parliament, voting more purely on a bill's merit rather than bowing to their party whip's decree and party elite's ideology of the moment. Far too often we get useless politicians more interested in currying favour with the party leaders and climbing the ranks, put into safe seats and voted in purely because of the party they represent rather than because they possess a discerning political mind able to effectively pull an issue apart logically, philosophically and empathically.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:54 am

Phew, I go away for a few hours and...

No worries folks, seeing as everyone's getting on OK in this thread, carry on

.

I voted Green last election (I live in a safe-as-houses Labour electorate so I figured the only way for my vote to achieve anythig was to try and push the BNP candidate down to last place. It didn't work).

However, given the state of the UK's finances, whoever wound up in power would have been forced to make pretty drastic cuts. After that the argument comes down to where do you cut?

by welshy824 Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:06 pm

the thing is after having a discussion with my history teacher about the great depression in 1930's and how the US solved that, they raised taxes and invested, whereas peoples idea now is to cut, which in all other cases in history cutting has failed completely.

the stupid thing is that alot of politicians aparently history graduates (or so my teacher told me)

by alcoombe Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:02 pm

welshy824 wrote:the thing is after having a discussion with my history teacher about the great depression in 1930's and how the US solved that, they raised taxes and invested, whereas peoples idea now is to cut, which in all other cases in history cutting has failed completely.

the stupid thing is that alot of politicians aparently history graduates (or so my teacher told me)

You can't compare the two eras, there are completely different economic pressures. A grasp of current economics is as important as history.

Worth noting though that it took 4 years for the US to begin its recovery and a decade until the GNP & unemployment rate returned to pre '29 levels. It was the Second World War that effectively ended the depression. Massive government spending and state employment, but matched with severe austerity measures, unpleasant working conditions and numerous social hardships.

by Sponsored content

David Cameron on rugby

David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby

Re: David Cameron on rugby