Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All education should be free however there should be a wider spread of choices. Tony Blair's ambition to send 50% to university was and is madness. It has devalued university education while leaving a generation with huge debts and starving the country of skilled tradespeople." Tony Blair hasn’t been the PM for 16 years  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. That will not be a vote winner for Labour, SKS needs an alternative viable policy very quickly. 2. We know there is no magic money tree (apart from BoE quantitative easing which leads to inflation hey ho) so as a country we need to decide what our priorities are. Funding needs to be allocated on the basis of priorities. 3. As someone with a niece and nephew who were fucked over by £9k tuition fees with almost no tuition and still no face-to-face university experience, I am livid at the whole system which should have been drastically changed during Covid. 4. I think the system should be dynamic and identify which skills the country is lacking and provide grants for students going down that route. 5. I think that grants should not be available for all courses but maybe a sliding scale should be introduced. 6. I think that should extend beyond university and encompass vocational skills (that the country needs) as well." That's a lot to take in but in short you think grants should be made available for certain courses, possibly ones which are in need at any given time? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. That will not be a vote winner for Labour, SKS needs an alternative viable policy very quickly. 2. We know there is no magic money tree (apart from BoE quantitative easing which leads to inflation hey ho) so as a country we need to decide what our priorities are. Funding needs to be allocated on the basis of priorities. 3. As someone with a niece and nephew who were fucked over by £9k tuition fees with almost no tuition and still no face-to-face university experience, I am livid at the whole system which should have been drastically changed during Covid. 4. I think the system should be dynamic and identify which skills the country is lacking and provide grants for students going down that route. 5. I think that grants should not be available for all courses but maybe a sliding scale should be introduced. 6. I think that should extend beyond university and encompass vocational skills (that the country needs) as well. That's a lot to take in but in short you think grants should be made available for certain courses, possibly ones which are in need at any given time?" Sorry I know I can be verbose at times 
Yes I think the UK (ie Govt ie taxpayers) should provide grants for students studying areas that will specifically fill skills gaps in the UK. That may change (should change) over time to different courses/skills.
An easy example is nurses. We should provide fully funded nursing degrees. There should be some kind of clawback clause if the student subsequently leaves NHS nursing before a given time so the country recoups the investment. Benefits include attracting more homegrown people into nursing and for them not to be saddled with huge debts. Win-Win | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. That will not be a vote winner for Labour, SKS needs an alternative viable policy very quickly. 2. We know there is no magic money tree (apart from BoE quantitative easing which leads to inflation hey ho) so as a country we need to decide what our priorities are. Funding needs to be allocated on the basis of priorities. 3. As someone with a niece and nephew who were fucked over by £9k tuition fees with almost no tuition and still no face-to-face university experience, I am livid at the whole system which should have been drastically changed during Covid. 4. I think the system should be dynamic and identify which skills the country is lacking and provide grants for students going down that route. 5. I think that grants should not be available for all courses but maybe a sliding scale should be introduced. 6. I think that should extend beyond university and encompass vocational skills (that the country needs) as well. That's a lot to take in but in short you think grants should be made available for certain courses, possibly ones which are in need at any given time? Sorry I know I can be verbose at times
Yes I think the UK (ie Govt ie taxpayers) should provide grants for students studying areas that will specifically fill skills gaps in the UK. That may change (should change) over time to different courses/skills.
An easy example is nurses. We should provide fully funded nursing degrees. There should be some kind of clawback clause if the student subsequently leaves NHS nursing before a given time so the country recoups the investment. Benefits include attracting more homegrown people into nursing and for them not to be saddled with huge debts. Win-Win"I'd definitely back that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have mixed views on this. I didn’t study at 18 but 29, I think I left with around 20K debt after a degree and masters and it took around 8 years to pay it off. Now it’s much higher but in reality only very high earners will pay it back , but many graduates will effectively pay a higher rate of tax for decades and some won’t pay much if any of it back and it won’t affect credit rating etc Access to higher education for those who want it is important and I think we have that now more than ever, more people opt for higher Ed than ever. If you aspire to earn a 6-figure salary by 30, the fees to make it happen won’t put you off. But If you want to be a Nurse, the system seems very unfair. For everyone else it’s a choice that comes at a cost, it’s a very good choice, but not for all but the choice is there for all , higher education is free at the point of getting it, you pay later if it worked " I here what your saying about it being free at the point of getting it. However, as a parent who has a child going to uni this year, it's still very much a worry about whether she can actually afford it or not. There's so much more to consider than fees alone and maybe it's me being idealist but I'd prefer her to concentrate on the studies than worry about finances. Not that her course would be available for bursary anyway I don't think (if it was available that is) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have mixed views on this. I didn’t study at 18 but 29, I think I left with around 20K debt after a degree and masters and it took around 8 years to pay it off. Now it’s much higher but in reality only very high earners will pay it back , but many graduates will effectively pay a higher rate of tax for decades and some won’t pay much if any of it back and it won’t affect credit rating etc Access to higher education for those who want it is important and I think we have that now more than ever, more people opt for higher Ed than ever. If you aspire to earn a 6-figure salary by 30, the fees to make it happen won’t put you off. But If you want to be a Nurse, the system seems very unfair. For everyone else it’s a choice that comes at a cost, it’s a very good choice, but not for all but the choice is there for all , higher education is free at the point of getting it, you pay later if it worked I here what your saying about it being free at the point of getting it. However, as a parent who has a child going to uni this year, it's still very much a worry about whether she can actually afford it or not. There's so much more to consider than fees alone and maybe it's me being idealist but I'd prefer her to concentrate on the studies than worry about finances. Not that her course would be available for bursary anyway I don't think (if it was available that is)" Accommodation is expensive especially in year 1, even if they get the max loan it will only just cover it at some. If you can help them in year one it gets easier and getting a part time job and summer work isn’t a bad thing. They can also load up on food when they visit! It shouldn’t be too easy for them , they will grow into adults better if it’s a little tough | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have mixed views on this. I didn’t study at 18 but 29, I think I left with around 20K debt after a degree and masters and it took around 8 years to pay it off. Now it’s much higher but in reality only very high earners will pay it back , but many graduates will effectively pay a higher rate of tax for decades and some won’t pay much if any of it back and it won’t affect credit rating etc Access to higher education for those who want it is important and I think we have that now more than ever, more people opt for higher Ed than ever. If you aspire to earn a 6-figure salary by 30, the fees to make it happen won’t put you off. But If you want to be a Nurse, the system seems very unfair. For everyone else it’s a choice that comes at a cost, it’s a very good choice, but not for all but the choice is there for all , higher education is free at the point of getting it, you pay later if it worked I here what your saying about it being free at the point of getting it. However, as a parent who has a child going to uni this year, it's still very much a worry about whether she can actually afford it or not. There's so much more to consider than fees alone and maybe it's me being idealist but I'd prefer her to concentrate on the studies than worry about finances. Not that her course would be available for bursary anyway I don't think (if it was available that is) Accommodation is expensive especially in year 1, even if they get the max loan it will only just cover it at some. If you can help them in year one it gets easier and getting a part time job and summer work isn’t a bad thing. They can also load up on food when they visit! It shouldn’t be too easy for them , they will grow into adults better if it’s a little tough " She will not get anywhere near the max loan, my fault for earning reasonably well I suppose
The accommodation at her preferred uni is 7500/year. That's a big old part time job just for accommodation.
The girl already has 2 jobs along with studying for A-levels, however she works those jobs to enjoy life not pay for rent and food.
Maybe we've been too soft on our children, but the way I see it is I had nothing growing up, I want to give them a better life than I had. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. That will not be a vote winner for Labour, SKS needs an alternative viable policy very quickly. 2. We know there is no magic money tree (apart from BoE quantitative easing which leads to inflation hey ho) so as a country we need to decide what our priorities are. Funding needs to be allocated on the basis of priorities. 3. As someone with a niece and nephew who were fucked over by £9k tuition fees with almost no tuition and still no face-to-face university experience, I am livid at the whole system which should have been drastically changed during Covid. 4. I think the system should be dynamic and identify which skills the country is lacking and provide grants for students going down that route. 5. I think that grants should not be available for all courses but maybe a sliding scale should be introduced. 6. I think that should extend beyond university and encompass vocational skills (that the country needs) as well." 4/5. This skews learning to what is considered "useful". By whom? Employers? Governments?Some obscure element of Mediaeval history or crazy cul-de-sac of physics should be equally valid as electrical engineering or anything else. What ultimately comes out of any avenue of study could be considerable. If we're in a world that is means tested, then that's what we do for university fees. A sliding scale. Grants too. 6. Degrees definitely should not be considered the only path. Higher vocational training should be equally valid as should GCSEs or A-levels plus vocational training. There has been a lot of qualifications inflation in the last couple of decades. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)?" ...but far, far fewer university students. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. That will not be a vote winner for Labour, SKS needs an alternative viable policy very quickly. 2. We know there is no magic money tree (apart from BoE quantitative easing which leads to inflation hey ho) so as a country we need to decide what our priorities are. Funding needs to be allocated on the basis of priorities. 3. As someone with a niece and nephew who were fucked over by £9k tuition fees with almost no tuition and still no face-to-face university experience, I am livid at the whole system which should have been drastically changed during Covid. 4. I think the system should be dynamic and identify which skills the country is lacking and provide grants for students going down that route. 5. I think that grants should not be available for all courses but maybe a sliding scale should be introduced. 6. I think that should extend beyond university and encompass vocational skills (that the country needs) as well. 4/5. This skews learning to what is considered "useful". By whom? Employers? Governments?Some obscure element of Mediaeval history or crazy cul-de-sac of physics should be equally valid as electrical engineering or anything else. What ultimately comes out of any avenue of study could be considerable. If we're in a world that is means tested, then that's what we do for university fees. A sliding scale. Grants too. 6. Degrees definitely should not be considered the only path. Higher vocational training should be equally valid as should GCSEs or A-levels plus vocational training. There has been a lot of qualifications inflation in the last couple of decades." So re 4/5 what would you suggest? It is clear that there is insufficient budget available to fully reinstate grants, so do we not offer any at all or should we identify skills gaps in the UK? As I said the system/process needs to be dynamic and be updated regularly. We know if the UK is to compete on the world stage, one area that needs strengthening is STEM subjects. We need more people with those skills. We don’t need “media studies”. If people want to study subjects that are not a clear and direct link to industry requirements, then no grant or maybe only partial grants. That isn’t punitive as no different to now, it is about encouraging and supporting students into areas we need more of. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why there's a problem. The amount required to be paid back back is miniscule, most won't pay it back at all and if Martin Lewis is a fan, what's not to like?" It's not "miniscule" to many people. 9% of salary if it's over £25k. It's also a debt that affects your mortgage. Only written off after 40 years. Is Martin Lewis really "a fan"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why there's a problem. The amount required to be paid back back is miniscule, most won't pay it back at all and if Martin Lewis is a fan, what's not to like? It's not "miniscule" to many people. 9% of salary if it's over £25k. It's also a debt that affects your mortgage. Only written off after 40 years. Is Martin Lewis really "a fan"?" And yes, Martin Lewis cites this as the cheapest loan you'll ever get | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just to get this straight before it turns into a load of misinformation. If you're on plan 1 (most likely) you'll pay back £82/month on a salary of 33k. There is a threshold that you minus off before paying back your 9%." what's the interest rate ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just to get this straight before it turns into a load of misinformation. If you're on plan 1 (most likely) you'll pay back £82/month on a salary of 33k. There is a threshold that you minus off before paying back your 9%.what's the interest rate ? " 5.25% on plan 1 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. That will not be a vote winner for Labour, SKS needs an alternative viable policy very quickly. 2. We know there is no magic money tree (apart from BoE quantitative easing which leads to inflation hey ho) so as a country we need to decide what our priorities are. Funding needs to be allocated on the basis of priorities. 3. As someone with a niece and nephew who were fucked over by £9k tuition fees with almost no tuition and still no face-to-face university experience, I am livid at the whole system which should have been drastically changed during Covid. 4. I think the system should be dynamic and identify which skills the country is lacking and provide grants for students going down that route. 5. I think that grants should not be available for all courses but maybe a sliding scale should be introduced. 6. I think that should extend beyond university and encompass vocational skills (that the country needs) as well. 4/5. This skews learning to what is considered "useful". By whom? Employers? Governments?Some obscure element of Mediaeval history or crazy cul-de-sac of physics should be equally valid as electrical engineering or anything else. What ultimately comes out of any avenue of study could be considerable. If we're in a world that is means tested, then that's what we do for university fees. A sliding scale. Grants too. 6. Degrees definitely should not be considered the only path. Higher vocational training should be equally valid as should GCSEs or A-levels plus vocational training. There has been a lot of qualifications inflation in the last couple of decades. So re 4/5 what would you suggest? It is clear that there is insufficient budget available to fully reinstate grants, so do we not offer any at all or should we identify skills gaps in the UK? As I said the system/process needs to be dynamic and be updated regularly. We know if the UK is to compete on the world stage, one area that needs strengthening is STEM subjects. We need more people with those skills. We don’t need “media studies”. If people want to study subjects that are not a clear and direct link to industry requirements, then no grant or maybe only partial grants. That isn’t punitive as no different to now, it is about encouraging and supporting students into areas we need more of. " If industry needs specific skilled staff, then they pay for them. Someone else suggested sponsored places for state positions like nurses which require a certain number of years service. Why not private industry too? That would reduce the requirement for state funded degrees. You would probably find that shorter vocational qualifications become more popular. This is pretty much what happens in Germany. That would become "dynamic" process. Not covering degrees that aren't "obviously" useful means that certain topics are only open to the wealthy. Adding to the sum of human knowledge shouldn't be about economic return and even if it were, lots of theoretical fields only become valuable decades later and would never have been funded. Imagine if we'd been "encouraging" people into the oil and gas industry? Where would the solutions for climate change have come from? There's more money in finding a cure for baldness than antibiotics. Should we be encouraging that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why there's a problem. The amount required to be paid back back is miniscule, most won't pay it back at all and if Martin Lewis is a fan, what's not to like? It's not "miniscule" to many people. 9% of salary if it's over £25k. It's also a debt that affects your mortgage. Only written off after 40 years. Is Martin Lewis really "a fan"? And yes, Martin Lewis cites this as the cheapest loan you'll ever get " That doesn't make him "a fan" does it? He also says that it's potentially a working life graduate tax, not a loan. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. That will not be a vote winner for Labour, SKS needs an alternative viable policy very quickly. 2. We know there is no magic money tree (apart from BoE quantitative easing which leads to inflation hey ho) so as a country we need to decide what our priorities are. Funding needs to be allocated on the basis of priorities. 3. As someone with a niece and nephew who were fucked over by £9k tuition fees with almost no tuition and still no face-to-face university experience, I am livid at the whole system which should have been drastically changed during Covid. 4. I think the system should be dynamic and identify which skills the country is lacking and provide grants for students going down that route. 5. I think that grants should not be available for all courses but maybe a sliding scale should be introduced. 6. I think that should extend beyond university and encompass vocational skills (that the country needs) as well. 4/5. This skews learning to what is considered "useful". By whom? Employers? Governments?Some obscure element of Mediaeval history or crazy cul-de-sac of physics should be equally valid as electrical engineering or anything else. What ultimately comes out of any avenue of study could be considerable. If we're in a world that is means tested, then that's what we do for university fees. A sliding scale. Grants too. 6. Degrees definitely should not be considered the only path. Higher vocational training should be equally valid as should GCSEs or A-levels plus vocational training. There has been a lot of qualifications inflation in the last couple of decades. So re 4/5 what would you suggest? It is clear that there is insufficient budget available to fully reinstate grants, so do we not offer any at all or should we identify skills gaps in the UK? As I said the system/process needs to be dynamic and be updated regularly. We know if the UK is to compete on the world stage, one area that needs strengthening is STEM subjects. We need more people with those skills. We don’t need “media studies”. If people want to study subjects that are not a clear and direct link to industry requirements, then no grant or maybe only partial grants. That isn’t punitive as no different to now, it is about encouraging and supporting students into areas we need more of. If industry needs specific skilled staff, then they pay for them. Someone else suggested sponsored places for state positions like nurses which require a certain number of years service. Why not private industry too? That would reduce the requirement for state funded degrees. You would probably find that shorter vocational qualifications become more popular. This is pretty much what happens in Germany. That would become "dynamic" process. Not covering degrees that aren't "obviously" useful means that certain topics are only open to the wealthy. Adding to the sum of human knowledge shouldn't be about economic return and even if it were, lots of theoretical fields only become valuable decades later and would never have been funded. Imagine if we'd been "encouraging" people into the oil and gas industry? Where would the solutions for climate change have come from? There's more money in finding a cure for baldness than antibiotics. Should we be encouraging that?" Why can't we fund certain subjects and arrange loans for others, that keeps those 'certain subjects' open to all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. That will not be a vote winner for Labour, SKS needs an alternative viable policy very quickly. 2. We know there is no magic money tree (apart from BoE quantitative easing which leads to inflation hey ho) so as a country we need to decide what our priorities are. Funding needs to be allocated on the basis of priorities. 3. As someone with a niece and nephew who were fucked over by £9k tuition fees with almost no tuition and still no face-to-face university experience, I am livid at the whole system which should have been drastically changed during Covid. 4. I think the system should be dynamic and identify which skills the country is lacking and provide grants for students going down that route. 5. I think that grants should not be available for all courses but maybe a sliding scale should be introduced. 6. I think that should extend beyond university and encompass vocational skills (that the country needs) as well. 4/5. This skews learning to what is considered "useful". By whom? Employers? Governments?Some obscure element of Mediaeval history or crazy cul-de-sac of physics should be equally valid as electrical engineering or anything else. What ultimately comes out of any avenue of study could be considerable. If we're in a world that is means tested, then that's what we do for university fees. A sliding scale. Grants too. 6. Degrees definitely should not be considered the only path. Higher vocational training should be equally valid as should GCSEs or A-levels plus vocational training. There has been a lot of qualifications inflation in the last couple of decades. So re 4/5 what would you suggest? It is clear that there is insufficient budget available to fully reinstate grants, so do we not offer any at all or should we identify skills gaps in the UK? As I said the system/process needs to be dynamic and be updated regularly. We know if the UK is to compete on the world stage, one area that needs strengthening is STEM subjects. We need more people with those skills. We don’t need “media studies”. If people want to study subjects that are not a clear and direct link to industry requirements, then no grant or maybe only partial grants. That isn’t punitive as no different to now, it is about encouraging and supporting students into areas we need more of. If industry needs specific skilled staff, then they pay for them. Someone else suggested sponsored places for state positions like nurses which require a certain number of years service. Why not private industry too? That would reduce the requirement for state funded degrees. You would probably find that shorter vocational qualifications become more popular. This is pretty much what happens in Germany. That would become "dynamic" process. Not covering degrees that aren't "obviously" useful means that certain topics are only open to the wealthy. Adding to the sum of human knowledge shouldn't be about economic return and even if it were, lots of theoretical fields only become valuable decades later and would never have been funded. Imagine if we'd been "encouraging" people into the oil and gas industry? Where would the solutions for climate change have come from? There's more money in finding a cure for baldness than antibiotics. Should we be encouraging that?" I agree in principle to this but would add could you not shorten some courses. My daughter done 2 years at RADA to get her degree so why can't others encourage the same it just means working harder. But courses funded by employers is key and you have a job at the end tied in for a number of years to pay back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why there's a problem. The amount required to be paid back back is miniscule, most won't pay it back at all and if Martin Lewis is a fan, what's not to like? It's not "miniscule" to many people. 9% of salary if it's over £25k. It's also a debt that affects your mortgage. Only written off after 40 years. Is Martin Lewis really "a fan"? And yes, Martin Lewis cites this as the cheapest loan you'll ever get That doesn't make him "a fan" does it? He also says that it's potentially a working life graduate tax, not a loan." Were you born argumentative? The man is nothing but positive on his reviews of this but that aside, I assume you have had no personal experience as this is a no brainer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. That will not be a vote winner for Labour, SKS needs an alternative viable policy very quickly. 2. We know there is no magic money tree (apart from BoE quantitative easing which leads to inflation hey ho) so as a country we need to decide what our priorities are. Funding needs to be allocated on the basis of priorities. 3. As someone with a niece and nephew who were fucked over by £9k tuition fees with almost no tuition and still no face-to-face university experience, I am livid at the whole system which should have been drastically changed during Covid. 4. I think the system should be dynamic and identify which skills the country is lacking and provide grants for students going down that route. 5. I think that grants should not be available for all courses but maybe a sliding scale should be introduced. 6. I think that should extend beyond university and encompass vocational skills (that the country needs) as well. 4/5. This skews learning to what is considered "useful". By whom? Employers? Governments?Some obscure element of Mediaeval history or crazy cul-de-sac of physics should be equally valid as electrical engineering or anything else. What ultimately comes out of any avenue of study could be considerable. If we're in a world that is means tested, then that's what we do for university fees. A sliding scale. Grants too. 6. Degrees definitely should not be considered the only path. Higher vocational training should be equally valid as should GCSEs or A-levels plus vocational training. There has been a lot of qualifications inflation in the last couple of decades. So re 4/5 what would you suggest? It is clear that there is insufficient budget available to fully reinstate grants, so do we not offer any at all or should we identify skills gaps in the UK? As I said the system/process needs to be dynamic and be updated regularly. We know if the UK is to compete on the world stage, one area that needs strengthening is STEM subjects. We need more people with those skills. We don’t need “media studies”. If people want to study subjects that are not a clear and direct link to industry requirements, then no grant or maybe only partial grants. That isn’t punitive as no different to now, it is about encouraging and supporting students into areas we need more of. If industry needs specific skilled staff, then they pay for them. Someone else suggested sponsored places for state positions like nurses which require a certain number of years service. Why not private industry too? That would reduce the requirement for state funded degrees. You would probably find that shorter vocational qualifications become more popular. This is pretty much what happens in Germany. That would become "dynamic" process. Not covering degrees that aren't "obviously" useful means that certain topics are only open to the wealthy. Adding to the sum of human knowledge shouldn't be about economic return and even if it were, lots of theoretical fields only become valuable decades later and would never have been funded. Imagine if we'd been "encouraging" people into the oil and gas industry? Where would the solutions for climate change have come from? There's more money in finding a cure for baldness than antibiotics. Should we be encouraging that? I agree in principle to this but would add could you not shorten some courses. My daughter done 2 years at RADA to get her degree so why can't others encourage the same it just means working harder. But courses funded by employers is key and you have a job at the end tied in for a number of years to pay back. " I think that Buckingham University does two year degrees. No holidays though. Perhaps that's better or perhaps that's academically too exhausting? Why degrees at all though? That's the point. Degrees can stay three years with adequate content. Two years for something more vocational without the broader theory that would produce a more "general" professional who might be more creative and less specialised? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why there's a problem. The amount required to be paid back back is miniscule, most won't pay it back at all and if Martin Lewis is a fan, what's not to like? It's not "miniscule" to many people. 9% of salary if it's over £25k. It's also a debt that affects your mortgage. Only written off after 40 years. Is Martin Lewis really "a fan"? And yes, Martin Lewis cites this as the cheapest loan you'll ever get That doesn't make him "a fan" does it? He also says that it's potentially a working life graduate tax, not a loan. Were you born argumentative? The man is nothing but positive on his reviews of this but that aside, I assume you have had no personal experience as this is a no brainer. " No. I was brought up to question people who make statements without much thought and expect to be believed. “Most new English starters will pay far more for their degrees over their lifetime than their predecessors. The decision to extend repayments to 40 years, combined with the other measures, will leave many who start university straight after school still repaying it into their 60s" "In effect these changes effectively complete the transformation of student 'loans', for most, into a working-life-long graduate tax for those who earn enough to pay it. The vast majority of those who go to university will pay the equivalent of 9% extra tax above a threshold, for up to forty years to pay for their education. "Sadly though, the Government has ignored my suggestion, supported in spirit by the report behind these changes, that if it’s going to make these changes, to at least be transparent and call this what it is: a 'graduate contribution system' – as it works far more like that than a loan." "While there are downsides to student loans that you should weigh up – and hopefully this guide will help you do that – one upside is you don't need to pay anything upfront to go to university. So no one should be put off from going because they think they can't afford it (though you may be put off by the long-term financial commitment)." Nothing but positive? He's certainly positive about an education and finding a way to achieve one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why there's a problem. The amount required to be paid back back is miniscule, most won't pay it back at all and if Martin Lewis is a fan, what's not to like? It's not "miniscule" to many people. 9% of salary if it's over £25k. It's also a debt that affects your mortgage. Only written off after 40 years. Is Martin Lewis really "a fan"? And yes, Martin Lewis cites this as the cheapest loan you'll ever get That doesn't make him "a fan" does it? He also says that it's potentially a working life graduate tax, not a loan. Were you born argumentative? The man is nothing but positive on his reviews of this but that aside, I assume you have had no personal experience as this is a no brainer. No. I was brought up to question people who make statements without much thought and expect to be believed. “Most new English starters will pay far more for their degrees over their lifetime than their predecessors. The decision to extend repayments to 40 years, combined with the other measures, will leave many who start university straight after school still repaying it into their 60s" "In effect these changes effectively complete the transformation of student 'loans', for most, into a working-life-long graduate tax for those who earn enough to pay it. The vast majority of those who go to university will pay the equivalent of 9% extra tax above a threshold, for up to forty years to pay for their education. "Sadly though, the Government has ignored my suggestion, supported in spirit by the report behind these changes, that if it’s going to make these changes, to at least be transparent and call this what it is: a 'graduate contribution system' – as it works far more like that than a loan." "While there are downsides to student loans that you should weigh up – and hopefully this guide will help you do that – one upside is you don't need to pay anything upfront to go to university. So no one should be put off from going because they think they can't afford it (though you may be put off by the long-term financial commitment)." Nothing but positive? He's certainly positive about an education and finding a way to achieve one." You clearly have no personal experience of this and as such I would suggest you keep your poorly informed opinion and interpretation of Martin Lewis view to yourself. Its as good a loan as you'll ever get. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why there's a problem. The amount required to be paid back back is miniscule, most won't pay it back at all and if Martin Lewis is a fan, what's not to like? It's not "miniscule" to many people. 9% of salary if it's over £25k. It's also a debt that affects your mortgage. Only written off after 40 years. Is Martin Lewis really "a fan"? And yes, Martin Lewis cites this as the cheapest loan you'll ever get That doesn't make him "a fan" does it? He also says that it's potentially a working life graduate tax, not a loan. Were you born argumentative? The man is nothing but positive on his reviews of this but that aside, I assume you have had no personal experience as this is a no brainer. No. I was brought up to question people who make statements without much thought and expect to be believed. “Most new English starters will pay far more for their degrees over their lifetime than their predecessors. The decision to extend repayments to 40 years, combined with the other measures, will leave many who start university straight after school still repaying it into their 60s" "In effect these changes effectively complete the transformation of student 'loans', for most, into a working-life-long graduate tax for those who earn enough to pay it. The vast majority of those who go to university will pay the equivalent of 9% extra tax above a threshold, for up to forty years to pay for their education. "Sadly though, the Government has ignored my suggestion, supported in spirit by the report behind these changes, that if it’s going to make these changes, to at least be transparent and call this what it is: a 'graduate contribution system' – as it works far more like that than a loan." "While there are downsides to student loans that you should weigh up – and hopefully this guide will help you do that – one upside is you don't need to pay anything upfront to go to university. So no one should be put off from going because they think they can't afford it (though you may be put off by the long-term financial commitment)." Sorry you say you don't need to pay anything up front. So no deposit for accommodation, food, transportation, it depends where you study if in London. Lots of university's don't have halls so it's down to the students perants to fund quit a lot. Nothing but positive? He's certainly positive about an education and finding a way to achieve one." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why there's a problem. The amount required to be paid back back is miniscule, most won't pay it back at all and if Martin Lewis is a fan, what's not to like? It's not "miniscule" to many people. 9% of salary if it's over £25k. It's also a debt that affects your mortgage. Only written off after 40 years. Is Martin Lewis really "a fan"? And yes, Martin Lewis cites this as the cheapest loan you'll ever get That doesn't make him "a fan" does it? He also says that it's potentially a working life graduate tax, not a loan. Were you born argumentative? The man is nothing but positive on his reviews of this but that aside, I assume you have had no personal experience as this is a no brainer. No. I was brought up to question people who make statements without much thought and expect to be believed. “Most new English starters will pay far more for their degrees over their lifetime than their predecessors. The decision to extend repayments to 40 years, combined with the other measures, will leave many who start university straight after school still repaying it into their 60s" "In effect these changes effectively complete the transformation of student 'loans', for most, into a working-life-long graduate tax for those who earn enough to pay it. The vast majority of those who go to university will pay the equivalent of 9% extra tax above a threshold, for up to forty years to pay for their education. "Sadly though, the Government has ignored my suggestion, supported in spirit by the report behind these changes, that if it’s going to make these changes, to at least be transparent and call this what it is: a 'graduate contribution system' – as it works far more like that than a loan." "While there are downsides to student loans that you should weigh up – and hopefully this guide will help you do that – one upside is you don't need to pay anything upfront to go to university. So no one should be put off from going because they think they can't afford it (though you may be put off by the long-term financial commitment)." Nothing but positive? He's certainly positive about an education and finding a way to achieve one. You clearly have no personal experience of this and as such I would suggest you keep your poorly informed opinion and interpretation of Martin Lewis view to yourself. Its as good a loan as you'll ever get. " Why should I keep my view of Martin Lewis to myself whilst you share yours? You're view on what Martin Lewis believes seems to be different to what Martin Lewis wrote, doesn't it? All this from querying a statement that you made? I didn't say that it was not a "good" loan, although Martin Lewis seems to query that it is a "loan", doesn't he? The question is if it is an appropriate thing to have to get a loan for. Should we get loans for education after 16 too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand why there's a problem. The amount required to be paid back back is miniscule, most won't pay it back at all and if Martin Lewis is a fan, what's not to like? It's not "miniscule" to many people. 9% of salary if it's over £25k. It's also a debt that affects your mortgage. Only written off after 40 years. Is Martin Lewis really "a fan"? And yes, Martin Lewis cites this as the cheapest loan you'll ever get That doesn't make him "a fan" does it? He also says that it's potentially a working life graduate tax, not a loan. Were you born argumentative? The man is nothing but positive on his reviews of this but that aside, I assume you have had no personal experience as this is a no brainer. No. I was brought up to question people who make statements without much thought and expect to be believed. “Most new English starters will pay far more for their degrees over their lifetime than their predecessors. The decision to extend repayments to 40 years, combined with the other measures, will leave many who start university straight after school still repaying it into their 60s" "In effect these changes effectively complete the transformation of student 'loans', for most, into a working-life-long graduate tax for those who earn enough to pay it. The vast majority of those who go to university will pay the equivalent of 9% extra tax above a threshold, for up to forty years to pay for their education. "Sadly though, the Government has ignored my suggestion, supported in spirit by the report behind these changes, that if it’s going to make these changes, to at least be transparent and call this what it is: a 'graduate contribution system' – as it works far more like that than a loan." "While there are downsides to student loans that you should weigh up – and hopefully this guide will help you do that – one upside is you don't need to pay anything upfront to go to university. So no one should be put off from going because they think they can't afford it (though you may be put off by the long-term financial commitment)." Sorry you say you don't need to pay anything up front. So no deposit for accommodation, food, transportation, it depends where you study if in London. Lots of university's don't have halls so it's down to the students perants to fund quit a lot. Nothing but positive? He's certainly positive about an education and finding a way to achieve one." I didn't say any of this. This is just some quotes from Martin Lewis' website demonstrating that he's not universally positive about student loans. I don't disagree with you though. There's always going to be an advantage to the wealthy and loans don't really reduce that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)?" You seem to have followed my path… I remember my “grant” was funded by LEA, local education authority in the later part of the 80’s. I then fell into debt with a student loan as things changed, but I paid my student loan back quickly as I earned the money to do that within 5 years of leaving education. During my time of study I needed to work in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet, I worked in depots unloading freight lorries until 3 am and a bar / waiter job at her weekend. I was often late to studies and always against the clock on deadlines. It wasn’t the natural path for me to pursue education, simply because my parents had not got the money, my grant and student loan made it possible. My personal opinion is that any person who has the capacity to expand their education and is committed to doing so, should be supported by all means possible to make that happen. We need educated people in this country, we need to support those coming up behind us to be their best selves and that is through education and experiences that enable them for the future. Starmer changing course annoys me as it clearly shows where he is willing to spend money and more importantly where he won’t! Levelling up more like dumbing down | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. That will not be a vote winner for Labour, SKS needs an alternative viable policy very quickly. 2. We know there is no magic money tree (apart from BoE quantitative easing which leads to inflation hey ho) so as a country we need to decide what our priorities are. Funding needs to be allocated on the basis of priorities. 3. As someone with a niece and nephew who were fucked over by £9k tuition fees with almost no tuition and still no face-to-face university experience, I am livid at the whole system which should have been drastically changed during Covid. 4. I think the system should be dynamic and identify which skills the country is lacking and provide grants for students going down that route. 5. I think that grants should not be available for all courses but maybe a sliding scale should be introduced. 6. I think that should extend beyond university and encompass vocational skills (that the country needs) as well. That's a lot to take in but in short you think grants should be made available for certain courses, possibly ones which are in need at any given time? Sorry I know I can be verbose at times
Yes I think the UK (ie Govt ie taxpayers) should provide grants for students studying areas that will specifically fill skills gaps in the UK. That may change (should change) over time to different courses/skills.
An easy example is nurses. We should provide fully funded nursing degrees. There should be some kind of clawback clause if the student subsequently leaves NHS nursing before a given time so the country recoups the investment. Benefits include attracting more homegrown people into nursing and for them not to be saddled with huge debts. Win-Win"Nurses, and teaching could be added to this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Currently the system is set up for very wealthy or people who will emigrate and leave the country with skills shortages after training for years. Biggest own goal was for the lib dems in 2010, effectively killed them as a party." I did always find that weird. One policy as a junior member of a coalition compared to countless Tory and Labour policy changes Curious. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)? You seem to have followed my path… I remember my “grant” was funded by LEA, local education authority in the later part of the 80’s. I then fell into debt with a student loan as things changed, but I paid my student loan back quickly as I earned the money to do that within 5 years of leaving education. During my time of study I needed to work in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet, I worked in depots unloading freight lorries until 3 am and a bar / waiter job at her weekend. I was often late to studies and always against the clock on deadlines. It wasn’t the natural path for me to pursue education, simply because my parents had not got the money, my grant and student loan made it possible. My personal opinion is that any person who has the capacity to expand their education and is committed to doing so, should be supported by all means possible to make that happen. We need educated people in this country, we need to support those coming up behind us to be their best selves and that is through education and experiences that enable them for the future. Starmer changing course annoys me as it clearly shows where he is willing to spend money and more importantly where he won’t! Levelling up more like dumbing down " We really are not the country we think that we are. We have been unable to pay the entire public services cost of living pays rises for over a decade. We can barely keep the lights on in hospitals and schools. I cannot see anything at all being added to the public purse by anyone until we grow as an economy and actual collect some more tax as a consequence. I think that all that any party can do is shift priorities, not be corrupt and not spend money and effort on distractions for publicity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)? You seem to have followed my path… I remember my “grant” was funded by LEA, local education authority in the later part of the 80’s. I then fell into debt with a student loan as things changed, but I paid my student loan back quickly as I earned the money to do that within 5 years of leaving education. During my time of study I needed to work in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet, I worked in depots unloading freight lorries until 3 am and a bar / waiter job at her weekend. I was often late to studies and always against the clock on deadlines. It wasn’t the natural path for me to pursue education, simply because my parents had not got the money, my grant and student loan made it possible. My personal opinion is that any person who has the capacity to expand their education and is committed to doing so, should be supported by all means possible to make that happen. We need educated people in this country, we need to support those coming up behind us to be their best selves and that is through education and experiences that enable them for the future. Starmer changing course annoys me as it clearly shows where he is willing to spend money and more importantly where he won’t! Levelling up more like dumbing down We really are not the country we think that we are. We have been unable to pay the entire public services cost of living pays rises for over a decade. We can barely keep the lights on in hospitals and schools. I cannot see anything at all being added to the public purse by anyone until we grow as an economy and actual collect some more tax as a consequence. I think that all that any party can do is shift priorities, not be corrupt and not spend money and effort on distractions for publicity." Can you decide on priorities? Could you decide? That is what a government is being asked to do on our behalf. Starmer, has shown what he believes to be of no priority and he will face the consequences of that decision. What I strongly believe in will not be paid for from our tax £’s, is what I heard today…..so that is why I will not put a x anywhere near a labour candidate . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)? You seem to have followed my path… I remember my “grant” was funded by LEA, local education authority in the later part of the 80’s. I then fell into debt with a student loan as things changed, but I paid my student loan back quickly as I earned the money to do that within 5 years of leaving education. During my time of study I needed to work in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet, I worked in depots unloading freight lorries until 3 am and a bar / waiter job at her weekend. I was often late to studies and always against the clock on deadlines. It wasn’t the natural path for me to pursue education, simply because my parents had not got the money, my grant and student loan made it possible. My personal opinion is that any person who has the capacity to expand their education and is committed to doing so, should be supported by all means possible to make that happen. We need educated people in this country, we need to support those coming up behind us to be their best selves and that is through education and experiences that enable them for the future. Starmer changing course annoys me as it clearly shows where he is willing to spend money and more importantly where he won’t! Levelling up more like dumbing down We really are not the country we think that we are. We have been unable to pay the entire public services cost of living pays rises for over a decade. We can barely keep the lights on in hospitals and schools. I cannot see anything at all being added to the public purse by anyone until we grow as an economy and actual collect some more tax as a consequence. I think that all that any party can do is shift priorities, not be corrupt and not spend money and effort on distractions for publicity. Can you decide on priorities? Could you decide? That is what a government is being asked to do on our behalf. Starmer, has shown what he believes to be of no priority and he will face the consequences of that decision. What I strongly believe in will not be paid for from our tax £’s, is what I heard today…..so that is why I will not put a x anywhere near a labour candidate . " ...but you will next to a Conservative one? Is anyone removing tuition fees? Why assume that removing tuition fees is of "no priority"? Seems like the most extreme interpretation. Less than something else perhaps? You just said that's what Government does. Policing? School education? The NHS? Cost of living? Growth? What's the Conservative priority? Immigration and deportation? Anything else? They got us where we are. Everyone faces the consequences of their decisions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)? You seem to have followed my path… I remember my “grant” was funded by LEA, local education authority in the later part of the 80’s. I then fell into debt with a student loan as things changed, but I paid my student loan back quickly as I earned the money to do that within 5 years of leaving education. During my time of study I needed to work in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet, I worked in depots unloading freight lorries until 3 am and a bar / waiter job at her weekend. I was often late to studies and always against the clock on deadlines. It wasn’t the natural path for me to pursue education, simply because my parents had not got the money, my grant and student loan made it possible. My personal opinion is that any person who has the capacity to expand their education and is committed to doing so, should be supported by all means possible to make that happen. We need educated people in this country, we need to support those coming up behind us to be their best selves and that is through education and experiences that enable them for the future. Starmer changing course annoys me as it clearly shows where he is willing to spend money and more importantly where he won’t! Levelling up more like dumbing down We really are not the country we think that we are. We have been unable to pay the entire public services cost of living pays rises for over a decade. We can barely keep the lights on in hospitals and schools. I cannot see anything at all being added to the public purse by anyone until we grow as an economy and actual collect some more tax as a consequence. I think that all that any party can do is shift priorities, not be corrupt and not spend money and effort on distractions for publicity." You are right, UK really isn’t the country people think it is. It’s efficiencies in tech and innovation in public services is some of the worst I’ve seen in the world It’s brightest people are advancing other countries services., while the dumb fucks are running the civil service and constantly being ripped off by those they think are clever like the Hancock’s with ridiculous ideas (or great ideas to make them money) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. That will not be a vote winner for Labour, SKS needs an alternative viable policy very quickly. 2. We know there is no magic money tree (apart from BoE quantitative easing which leads to inflation hey ho) so as a country we need to decide what our priorities are. Funding needs to be allocated on the basis of priorities. 3. As someone with a niece and nephew who were fucked over by £9k tuition fees with almost no tuition and still no face-to-face university experience, I am livid at the whole system which should have been drastically changed during Covid. 4. I think the system should be dynamic and identify which skills the country is lacking and provide grants for students going down that route. 5. I think that grants should not be available for all courses but maybe a sliding scale should be introduced. 6. I think that should extend beyond university and encompass vocational skills (that the country needs) as well. 4/5. This skews learning to what is considered "useful". By whom? Employers? Governments?Some obscure element of Mediaeval history or crazy cul-de-sac of physics should be equally valid as electrical engineering or anything else. What ultimately comes out of any avenue of study could be considerable. If we're in a world that is means tested, then that's what we do for university fees. A sliding scale. Grants too. 6. Degrees definitely should not be considered the only path. Higher vocational training should be equally valid as should GCSEs or A-levels plus vocational training. There has been a lot of qualifications inflation in the last couple of decades. So re 4/5 what would you suggest? It is clear that there is insufficient budget available to fully reinstate grants, so do we not offer any at all or should we identify skills gaps in the UK? As I said the system/process needs to be dynamic and be updated regularly. We know if the UK is to compete on the world stage, one area that needs strengthening is STEM subjects. We need more people with those skills. We don’t need “media studies”. If people want to study subjects that are not a clear and direct link to industry requirements, then no grant or maybe only partial grants. That isn’t punitive as no different to now, it is about encouraging and supporting students into areas we need more of. If industry needs specific skilled staff, then they pay for them. Someone else suggested sponsored places for state positions like nurses which require a certain number of years service. Why not private industry too? That would reduce the requirement for state funded degrees. You would probably find that shorter vocational qualifications become more popular. This is pretty much what happens in Germany. That would become "dynamic" process. Not covering degrees that aren't "obviously" useful means that certain topics are only open to the wealthy. Adding to the sum of human knowledge shouldn't be about economic return and even if it were, lots of theoretical fields only become valuable decades later and would never have been funded. Imagine if we'd been "encouraging" people into the oil and gas industry? Where would the solutions for climate change have come from? There's more money in finding a cure for baldness than antibiotics. Should we be encouraging that?" m Easy you said... "Not covering degrees that aren't "obviously" useful means that certain topics are only open to the wealthy." How is that any different to now? Currently everyone has to pay tuition fees and unless they are wealthy they all have to get a student loan. My approach provides an incentive to study skills gaps, it is not a disincentive to study other areas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All education should be free however there should be a wider spread of choices. Tony Blair's ambition to send 50% to university was and is madness. It has devalued university education while leaving a generation with huge debts and starving the country of skilled tradespeople. Tony Blair hasn’t been the PM for 16 years "Sure, but it was his stupid idea to devalue degrees by making them the default choice at 18 not the exception. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it?" The rothchilds,secret project hero report guaranteed higher education will never be free again in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)? You seem to have followed my path… I remember my “grant” was funded by LEA, local education authority in the later part of the 80’s. I then fell into debt with a student loan as things changed, but I paid my student loan back quickly as I earned the money to do that within 5 years of leaving education. During my time of study I needed to work in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet, I worked in depots unloading freight lorries until 3 am and a bar / waiter job at her weekend. I was often late to studies and always against the clock on deadlines. It wasn’t the natural path for me to pursue education, simply because my parents had not got the money, my grant and student loan made it possible. My personal opinion is that any person who has the capacity to expand their education and is committed to doing so, should be supported by all means possible to make that happen. We need educated people in this country, we need to support those coming up behind us to be their best selves and that is through education and experiences that enable them for the future. Starmer changing course annoys me as it clearly shows where he is willing to spend money and more importantly where he won’t! Levelling up more like dumbing down We really are not the country we think that we are. We have been unable to pay the entire public services cost of living pays rises for over a decade. We can barely keep the lights on in hospitals and schools. I cannot see anything at all being added to the public purse by anyone until we grow as an economy and actual collect some more tax as a consequence. I think that all that any party can do is shift priorities, not be corrupt and not spend money and effort on distractions for publicity." To grow the economy we need to ensure we have the right skills. So why not incentivise people to study in the areas we have skills gaps? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I had a free higher education & saddling young people with debt cannot be a good idea. The Scots can pay for tuition fees & still have money left for a motorhome or two. Where has all the money gone in England? " To Scotland. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it?" I can see why SKS has done this. An educated population that knows how to analyse information is much harder to coerce and fool. Why would any government want that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. That will not be a vote winner for Labour, SKS needs an alternative viable policy very quickly. 2. We know there is no magic money tree (apart from BoE quantitative easing which leads to inflation hey ho) so as a country we need to decide what our priorities are. Funding needs to be allocated on the basis of priorities. 3. As someone with a niece and nephew who were fucked over by £9k tuition fees with almost no tuition and still no face-to-face university experience, I am livid at the whole system which should have been drastically changed during Covid. 4. I think the system should be dynamic and identify which skills the country is lacking and provide grants for students going down that route. 5. I think that grants should not be available for all courses but maybe a sliding scale should be introduced. 6. I think that should extend beyond university and encompass vocational skills (that the country needs) as well. 4/5. This skews learning to what is considered "useful". By whom? Employers? Governments?Some obscure element of Mediaeval history or crazy cul-de-sac of physics should be equally valid as electrical engineering or anything else. What ultimately comes out of any avenue of study could be considerable. If we're in a world that is means tested, then that's what we do for university fees. A sliding scale. Grants too. 6. Degrees definitely should not be considered the only path. Higher vocational training should be equally valid as should GCSEs or A-levels plus vocational training. There has been a lot of qualifications inflation in the last couple of decades. So re 4/5 what would you suggest? It is clear that there is insufficient budget available to fully reinstate grants, so do we not offer any at all or should we identify skills gaps in the UK? As I said the system/process needs to be dynamic and be updated regularly. We know if the UK is to compete on the world stage, one area that needs strengthening is STEM subjects. We need more people with those skills. We don’t need “media studies”. If people want to study subjects that are not a clear and direct link to industry requirements, then no grant or maybe only partial grants. That isn’t punitive as no different to now, it is about encouraging and supporting students into areas we need more of. If industry needs specific skilled staff, then they pay for them. Someone else suggested sponsored places for state positions like nurses which require a certain number of years service. Why not private industry too? That would reduce the requirement for state funded degrees. You would probably find that shorter vocational qualifications become more popular. This is pretty much what happens in Germany. That would become "dynamic" process. Not covering degrees that aren't "obviously" useful means that certain topics are only open to the wealthy. Adding to the sum of human knowledge shouldn't be about economic return and even if it were, lots of theoretical fields only become valuable decades later and would never have been funded. Imagine if we'd been "encouraging" people into the oil and gas industry? Where would the solutions for climate change have come from? There's more money in finding a cure for baldness than antibiotics. Should we be encouraging that?m Easy you said... Not covering degrees that aren't "obviously" useful means that certain topics are only open to the wealthy. How is that any different to now? Currently everyone has to pay tuition fees and unless they are wealthy they all have to get a student loan. My approach provides an incentive to study skills gaps, it is not a disincentive to study other areas." What you are describing as a incentive to do one thing is a disincentive to do another. At this point you are taking on a debt but you are not particularly constrained in your choice of course. However, if funding shifts to those currently thought "useful" then they will not be taught at university and will not be an available choice. Academia and the breadth of knowledge in the country will be permanently impoverished. What we should be doing is making further education cheaper (all types) but organisations wanting more skills paying for them with the market mechanism. Pay or sponsored degrees or new industry qualifications. The money "saved" by the external, dynamic, system should then be used to subsidies all the other other topics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? I can see why SKS has done this. An educated population that knows how to analyse information is much harder to coerce and fool. Why would any government want that. " I don't think that is true. I'm not sure that you do either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? The rothchilds,secret project hero report guaranteed higher education will never be free again in the UK." What is this "secret" plan that you know about? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I had a free higher education & saddling young people with debt cannot be a good idea. The Scots can pay for tuition fees & still have money left for a motorhome or two. Where has all the money gone in England? " A lot of it has ended up in Tory donor, cronies, friends, and family pockets! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. " Why are U-turns such an issue? Not fulfilling a promise after the event seems dishonest to me. Withdrawing a promise before voting seems to be pretty upfront to me. What is the issue with a U-turn now? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Why are U-turns such an issue? Not fulfilling a promise after the event seems dishonest to me. Withdrawing a promise before voting seems to be pretty upfront to me. What is the issue with a U-turn now?" I'd agree with you in terms of the GE. However, he used that pledge to win the leadership battle, so in that sense its after the event. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All education should be free however there should be a wider spread of choices. Tony Blair's ambition to send 50% to university was and is madness. It has devalued university education while leaving a generation with huge debts and starving the country of skilled tradespeople. Tony Blair hasn’t been the PM for 16 years
Sure, but it was his stupid idea to devalue degrees by making them the default choice at 18 not the exception."The governments (since 2007) have had plenty of time to change this but I do agree that certain degrees don’t carry the same ‘prestige’ as they used to | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Why are U-turns such an issue? Not fulfilling a promise after the event seems dishonest to me. Withdrawing a promise before voting seems to be pretty upfront to me. What is the issue with a U-turn now? I'd agree with you in terms of the GE. However, he used that pledge to win the leadership battle, so in that sense its after the event. " But there is a general point here about ALL politicians. They make all manner of promises/pledges. Pre-general election the manifestos are crammed with them. Has anyone ever tracked the record of all governments in delivering on those manifesto pledges? Wonder what the avg % is? It is easy to promise the earth but no strategy survives contact with the enemy (ie budgetary reality and a changing landscape or emergence of exogenous events). So do we: A) Lambast all politicians who break pledges regardless of the reason? B) Recognise pragmatism and shifting priorities based on the reality of the situation that is current at the time a pledge may need to become actioned? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Why are U-turns such an issue? Not fulfilling a promise after the event seems dishonest to me. Withdrawing a promise before voting seems to be pretty upfront to me. What is the issue with a U-turn now? I'd agree with you in terms of the GE. However, he used that pledge to win the leadership battle, so in that sense its after the event. But there is a general point here about ALL politicians. They make all manner of promises/pledges. Pre-general election the manifestos are crammed with them. Has anyone ever tracked the record of all governments in delivering on those manifesto pledges? Wonder what the avg % is? It is easy to promise the earth but no strategy survives contact with the enemy (ie budgetary reality and a changing landscape or emergence of exogenous events). So do we: A) Lambast all politicians who break pledges regardless of the reason? B) Recognise pragmatism and shifting priorities based on the reality of the situation that is current at the time a pledge may need to become actioned? " Oh I absolutely agree that all politicians break pledges, every single on of them. I was just pointing out that this could be seen as 'after the event', that's what easy was trying to argue against I think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. " Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics "Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue. SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence. 15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year"He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year"
And the Tories haven't even started their propaganda campaigns yet.
Chance of Labour, or anyone else beating the Tories is absolute zero. In my opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? I can see why SKS has done this. An educated population that knows how to analyse information is much harder to coerce and fool. Why would any government want that. I don't think that is true. I'm not sure that you do either." Why else would governments want to keep people less educated, and less able to be analytical in their approach? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire. "If this is the case. What's the point in Labour winning? Marginally less self serving and narcissistic, but still shit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire. "Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
If this is the case. What's the point in Labour winning?
Marginally less self serving and narcissistic, but still shit?"IMHO labour won’t be as bad as this version of the tories, there won’t be the industrial scale corruption , it’s time for change and slightly less shit is better than nothing . Sunak seems like a competent PM but he has surrounded himself with utter shite, for example , Lee Anderson is the deputy chair of the Conservative Party and he is as thick as shit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy "Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy "Is incompetence a factor for most voters? Recent history would suggest it's not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
If this is the case. What's the point in Labour winning?
Marginally less self serving and narcissistic, but still shit?
IMHO labour won’t be as bad as this version of the tories, there won’t be the industrial scale corruption , it’s time for change and slightly less shit is better than nothing . Sunak seems like a competent PM but he has surrounded himself with utter shite, for example , Lee Anderson is the deputy chair of the Conservative Party and he is as thick as shit "Fair enough. Seems like our bar is so low it's ridiculous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
If this is the case. What's the point in Labour winning?
Marginally less self serving and narcissistic, but still shit?
IMHO labour won’t be as bad as this version of the tories, there won’t be the industrial scale corruption , it’s time for change and slightly less shit is better than nothing . Sunak seems like a competent PM but he has surrounded himself with utter shite, for example , Lee Anderson is the deputy chair of the Conservative Party and he is as thick as shit "Labour won’t be any different than the Tories when it comes to corruption. Personally, I don’t trust any of the political parties and won’t be voting. I’d rather not vote than vote just because they are slightly less smelly ??! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
If this is the case. What's the point in Labour winning?
Marginally less self serving and narcissistic, but still shit?
IMHO labour won’t be as bad as this version of the tories, there won’t be the industrial scale corruption , it’s time for change and slightly less shit is better than nothing . Sunak seems like a competent PM but he has surrounded himself with utter shite, for example , Lee Anderson is the deputy chair of the Conservative Party and he is as thick as shit
Fair enough. Seems like our bar is so low it's ridiculous."Labours aren’t great but they don’t have the likes Gullis Braverman Anderson Pincher Etc etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult "You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS. He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I had a free higher education & saddling young people with debt cannot be a good idea. The Scots can pay for tuition fees & still have money left for a motorhome or two. Where has all the money gone in England? A lot of it has ended up in Tory donor, cronies, friends, and family pockets!" if I were you, I would look at Vice Chancellor’s salaries if you want to know where the money has gone….. and I doubt many of them vote Tory! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult
You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS.
He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles."Labour will win because they are slightly less shit than the Tories , it’s that simple | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult
You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS.
He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles.
Labour will win because they are slightly less shit than the Tories , it’s that simple "great  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult
You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS.
He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles.
Labour will win because they are slightly less shit than the Tories , it’s that simple
great "Glad you agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult
You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS.
He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles.
Labour will win because they are slightly less shit than the Tories , it’s that simple
great
Glad you agree "Playground stuff again? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult
You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS.
He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles.
Labour will win because they are slightly less shit than the Tories , it’s that simple
great
Glad you agree
Playground stuff again?" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult
You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS.
He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles.
Labour will win because they are slightly less shit than the Tories , it’s that simple "should be easy to be less shit when you are not the ones making the decisions…..however, when they are the ones making the decisions, I think we will all realise that they are no better…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult
You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS.
He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles.
Labour will win because they are slightly less shit than the Tories , it’s that simple should be easy to be less shit when you are not the ones making the decisions…..however, when they are the ones making the decisions, I think we will all realise that they are no better…."We will soon find out | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult
You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS.
He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles.
Labour will win because they are slightly less shit than the Tories , it’s that simple should be easy to be less shit when you are not the ones making the decisions…..however, when they are the ones making the decisions, I think we will all realise that they are no better…."Personally I think policy wise they will be pretty similar. Working on behalf of big corporations, fucking over poor and disadvantaged people. Blaming immigrants etc. Standard stuff. But I do think they'd be less corrupt. I can't see them at the same level of disaster capitalism shoveling billions into the friends, donor's and neighbours pockets. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Why are U-turns such an issue? Not fulfilling a promise after the event seems dishonest to me. Withdrawing a promise before voting seems to be pretty upfront to me. What is the issue with a U-turn now? I'd agree with you in terms of the GE. However, he used that pledge to win the leadership battle, so in that sense its after the event. " You make a decision at some point. Either it's cynical and you know full well that you can't deliver or you believe that you can and discover that you can't. None of us know the reality. It would be reasonable think that Labour party members would be knowledgeable about the the party politics of the inernal campaigns. At least it is being done before the general public make their decisions (although these are local rather than national elections). Certainly better than announcing afterwards. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? I can see why SKS has done this. An educated population that knows how to analyse information is much harder to coerce and fool. Why would any government want that. I don't think that is true. I'm not sure that you do either. Why else would governments want to keep people less educated, and less able to be analytical in their approach?" It's a big step from saying that they actively want to do something for the purpose of keeping the population ignorant and not being competent enough to do something that ends up leaving the population ignorant. The outcome may be the same, bit the intent is different. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? I can see why SKS has done this. An educated population that knows how to analyse information is much harder to coerce and fool. Why would any government want that. I don't think that is true. I'm not sure that you do either. Why else would governments want to keep people less educated, and less able to be analytical in their approach? It's a big step from saying that they actively want to do something for the purpose of keeping the population ignorant and not being competent enough to do something that ends up leaving the population ignorant. The outcome may be the same, bit the intent is different." I mean, isn't that the purpose of the Eaton - Oxbridge - Westminster (via a corporate bank or oil company) for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult
You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS.
He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles.
Labour will win because they are slightly less shit than the Tories , it’s that simple "I agree Labour will win and I think with a good majority. The fact that our only hope is they are slightly less shit is a sobering thought | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult
You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS.
He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles.
Labour will win because they are slightly less shit than the Tories , it’s that simple
I agree Labour will win and I think with a good majority. The fact that our only hope is they are slightly less shit is a sobering thought"If Starmer continues to flip flop, go on offensive smear campaigns and show no strategic thinking his majority wont be enough for him and labour to provide any sort of stable government. I think that is where we are headed, I hope I'm wrong because it will be worse position than we are in now. But Starmer seems committed in throwing away his lead. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult
You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS.
He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles.
Labour will win because they are slightly less shit than the Tories , it’s that simple
I agree Labour will win and I think with a good majority. The fact that our only hope is they are slightly less shit is a sobering thought
If Starmer continues to flip flop, go on offensive smear campaigns and show no strategic thinking his majority wont be enough for him and labour to provide any sort of stable government. I think that is where we are headed, I hope I'm wrong because it will be worse position than we are in now. But Starmer seems committed in throwing away his lead."Why would this be worse than now? You described our current situation to a T. Flip floping Offensive smear campaigns No strategic thinking But I don't think you need to worry, the Tories will win easily. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it?" A mixed bag topic. I dont think we need as many unis as we have or students. I think we need to encourage more youth to go into trade. Either that or allow trades to become university degrees. I dont see why you now need a degree to become a nurse or police officer. Maybe review courses? If courses get below a certain subscription. They are halted from thatbuni. So that the uni can concentrate it's funds on more profitable degrees with better vocational success? I was one of those who witnessed many at uni drop out, or do a business degree ti work in recruitment, or become a Costa coffee manager. You don't need degrees for any of that. The government like the banking crisis, needs to withdraw support from failing unis. Let those that teach better and more useful degrees flourish | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult
You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS.
He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles.
Labour will win because they are slightly less shit than the Tories , it’s that simple
I agree Labour will win and I think with a good majority. The fact that our only hope is they are slightly less shit is a sobering thought
If Starmer continues to flip flop, go on offensive smear campaigns and show no strategic thinking his majority wont be enough for him and labour to provide any sort of stable government. I think that is where we are headed, I hope I'm wrong because it will be worse position than we are in now. But Starmer seems committed in throwing away his lead.
Why would this be worse than now? You described our current situation to a T.
Flip floping
Offensive smear campaigns
No strategic thinking
But I don't think you need to worry, the Tories will win easily."A government that can't govern because of a slim majority is nothing but trouble and that is where Starmer is heading. He had the lead and he is throwing it away. the problem here is the most vocal want anything other than tory, without thinking it through! It can be worse than it is today, a labour government with a leader who has no focus or overwhelming majority will be a disaster for this country when it will hurt the most. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? I can see why SKS has done this. An educated population that knows how to analyse information is much harder to coerce and fool. Why would any government want that. I don't think that is true. I'm not sure that you do either. Why else would governments want to keep people less educated, and less able to be analytical in their approach? It's a big step from saying that they actively want to do something for the purpose of keeping the population ignorant and not being competent enough to do something that ends up leaving the population ignorant. The outcome may be the same, bit the intent is different. I mean, isn't that the purpose of the Eaton - Oxbridge - Westminster (via a corporate bank or oil company) for." No. It's an outcome for some, not others. That's inverted snobbery. You are becoming who you despise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Getting drawn into tuition fees is the distraction on this thread, the issue is the u-turn by SKS, the first of many more to come. Lying and U turns are now part and parcel of UK politics
Glad to hear the whole forum is now recognising this, when it was any type of u-turn from the tories it seemed to be a tory only issue.
SKS is no different to the rest, in fact he is becoming a frequent offender and he has has a unique ability to derail himself and show strategic incompetence.
15 point lead in the polls, if he continues on this path it will be 15 point deficit by the end of the year
He has realised that the only way to win the next election is to lie like the tories, he will keep his 15 point lead because Sunak and the tories will be held to account for their lies because they are in government. He is fighting fire with fire.
Nothing to do with the tories, this is about SKS throwing away the lead due to incompetence and lack of strategy
Oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them . SKS doesn’t have to be good or even decent, he just needs to be slightly less shit than the current government, that won’t be difficult
You are trotting out the same old blurb to support something that is not great, namely the labour party and SKS.
He is throwing away the lead he had by simply opening his mouth. Even if the labour party manage to win their margin is being eroded by his clumsy ill thought out responses and actions. They will struggle without a majority, it will mean they need to keep negotiating within the party or elsewhere to get things done. Shambles.
Labour will win because they are slightly less shit than the Tories , it’s that simple
I agree Labour will win and I think with a good majority. The fact that our only hope is they are slightly less shit is a sobering thought
If Starmer continues to flip flop, go on offensive smear campaigns and show no strategic thinking his majority wont be enough for him and labour to provide any sort of stable government. I think that is where we are headed, I hope I'm wrong because it will be worse position than we are in now. But Starmer seems committed in throwing away his lead.
Why would this be worse than now? You described our current situation to a T.
Flip floping
Offensive smear campaigns
No strategic thinking
But I don't think you need to worry, the Tories will win easily.
A government that can't govern because of a slim majority is nothing but trouble and that is where Starmer is heading. He had the lead and he is throwing it away.
the problem here is the most vocal want anything other than tory, without thinking it through! It can be worse than it is today, a labour government with a leader who has no focus or overwhelming majority will be a disaster for this country when it will hurt the most.
"I don't think you're right. Of course it's physically possible to be even worse than the current crop. But I think it's highly unlikely that if Labour get in they'd be worse. You know my prediction anyway, more Conservative rule. So I don't think it'll happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? I can see why SKS has done this. An educated population that knows how to analyse information is much harder to coerce and fool. Why would any government want that. I don't think that is true. I'm not sure that you do either. Why else would governments want to keep people less educated, and less able to be analytical in their approach? It's a big step from saying that they actively want to do something for the purpose of keeping the population ignorant and not being competent enough to do something that ends up leaving the population ignorant. The outcome may be the same, bit the intent is different. I mean, isn't that the purpose of the Eaton - Oxbridge - Westminster (via a corporate bank or oil company) for. No. It's an outcome for some, not others. That's inverted snobbery. You are becoming who you despise." I despise the system that is designed to keep people at the top, at the top, and the people at the bottom down where they belong. Making education effectively unavailable for poor people is a part of that system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? I can see why SKS has done this. An educated population that knows how to analyse information is much harder to coerce and fool. Why would any government want that. I don't think that is true. I'm not sure that you do either. Why else would governments want to keep people less educated, and less able to be analytical in their approach? It's a big step from saying that they actively want to do something for the purpose of keeping the population ignorant and not being competent enough to do something that ends up leaving the population ignorant. The outcome may be the same, bit the intent is different. I mean, isn't that the purpose of the Eaton - Oxbridge - Westminster (via a corporate bank or oil company) for. No. It's an outcome for some, not others. That's inverted snobbery. You are becoming who you despise. I despise the system that is designed to keep people at the top, at the top, and the people at the bottom down where they belong. Making education effectively unavailable for poor people is a part of that system. " Are you saying that is what we have? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? A mixed bag topic. I dont think we need as many unis as we have or students. I think we need to encourage more youth to go into trade. Either that or allow trades to become university degrees. I dont see why you now need a degree to become a nurse or police officer. Maybe review courses? If courses get below a certain subscription. They are halted from thatbuni. So that the uni can concentrate it's funds on more profitable degrees with better vocational success? I was one of those who witnessed many at uni drop out, or do a business degree ti work in recruitment, or become a Costa coffee manager. You don't need degrees for any of that. The government like the banking crisis, needs to withdraw support from failing unis. Let those that teach better and more useful degrees flourish " So would you say you need a degree to become an actor. Or have some university's created courses that could be NVQ or Btec don't realy hear much about B tec theas days | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? A mixed bag topic. I dont think we need as many unis as we have or students. I think we need to encourage more youth to go into trade. Either that or allow trades to become university degrees. I dont see why you now need a degree to become a nurse or police officer. Maybe review courses? If courses get below a certain subscription. They are halted from thatbuni. So that the uni can concentrate it's funds on more profitable degrees with better vocational success? I was one of those who witnessed many at uni drop out, or do a business degree ti work in recruitment, or become a Costa coffee manager. You don't need degrees for any of that. The government like the banking crisis, needs to withdraw support from failing unis. Let those that teach better and more useful degrees flourish So would you say you need a degree to become an actor. Or have some university's created courses that could be NVQ or Btec don't realy hear much about B tec theas days " Every 1 would have their own idea. I think we can certainly strip back the jobs that used to require learning on the job like police and nurses. There was a university offering klingonlanguages when I attended and grass turf management. Not sure how many would apply for these. But it means there's probably a tutor that needs a necessary and pension. Maybe differing fees for differing degrees as to what's the most desired skill set in current employment market. My uncle earns more than me as a plumber. And didn't get himself into 20k of debt for it. Maybe incentivise traditional trades more? There definitely not 1 solution for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? I can see why SKS has done this. An educated population that knows how to analyse information is much harder to coerce and fool. Why would any government want that. I don't think that is true. I'm not sure that you do either. Why else would governments want to keep people less educated, and less able to be analytical in their approach? It's a big step from saying that they actively want to do something for the purpose of keeping the population ignorant and not being competent enough to do something that ends up leaving the population ignorant. The outcome may be the same, bit the intent is different. I mean, isn't that the purpose of the Eaton - Oxbridge - Westminster (via a corporate bank or oil company) for. No. It's an outcome for some, not others. That's inverted snobbery. You are becoming who you despise. I despise the system that is designed to keep people at the top, at the top, and the people at the bottom down where they belong. Making education effectively unavailable for poor people is a part of that system. " You made a sweeping generalisation. A prejudiced comment. Again, why do you think it is the intent of "the system" to keep people down? I don't see that the education system is set up to do that. The informal networks do help people up though. As does money which always provides an unfair advantage. If not independent schools it will be private tutors. The system is not set-up to minimise that differential. Again, those are not the same thing as active repression. That sounds like a dramatic flourish, not realistic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? I can see why SKS has done this. An educated population that knows how to analyse information is much harder to coerce and fool. Why would any government want that. I don't think that is true. I'm not sure that you do either. Why else would governments want to keep people less educated, and less able to be analytical in their approach? It's a big step from saying that they actively want to do something for the purpose of keeping the population ignorant and not being competent enough to do something that ends up leaving the population ignorant. The outcome may be the same, bit the intent is different. I mean, isn't that the purpose of the Eaton - Oxbridge - Westminster (via a corporate bank or oil company) for. No. It's an outcome for some, not others. That's inverted snobbery. You are becoming who you despise. I despise the system that is designed to keep people at the top, at the top, and the people at the bottom down where they belong. Making education effectively unavailable for poor people is a part of that system. You made a sweeping generalisation. A prejudiced comment. Again, why do you think it is the intent of "the system" to keep people down? I don't see that the education system is set up to do that. The informal networks do help people up though. As does money which always provides an unfair advantage. If not independent schools it will be private tutors. The system is not set-up to minimise that differential. Again, those are not the same thing as active repression. That sounds like a dramatic flourish, not realistic." But can you realy make or create a system that is faer to all if some one is clever is that fair. Or dose that mean the person how is behind should get more support. How would you ballance people with dyslexia, learning difficulties, the blind,ADHD and the deaf to make them all equal. And have the same opertunity. Regardless of wealth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? I can see why SKS has done this. An educated population that knows how to analyse information is much harder to coerce and fool. Why would any government want that. I don't think that is true. I'm not sure that you do either. Why else would governments want to keep people less educated, and less able to be analytical in their approach? It's a big step from saying that they actively want to do something for the purpose of keeping the population ignorant and not being competent enough to do something that ends up leaving the population ignorant. The outcome may be the same, bit the intent is different. I mean, isn't that the purpose of the Eaton - Oxbridge - Westminster (via a corporate bank or oil company) for. No. It's an outcome for some, not others. That's inverted snobbery. You are becoming who you despise. I despise the system that is designed to keep people at the top, at the top, and the people at the bottom down where they belong. Making education effectively unavailable for poor people is a part of that system. You made a sweeping generalisation. A prejudiced comment. Again, why do you think it is the intent of "the system" to keep people down? I don't see that the education system is set up to do that. The informal networks do help people up though. As does money which always provides an unfair advantage. If not independent schools it will be private tutors. The system is not set-up to minimise that differential. Again, those are not the same thing as active repression. That sounds like a dramatic flourish, not realistic. But can you realy make or create a system that is faer to all if some one is clever is that fair. Or dose that mean the person how is behind should get more support. How would you ballance people with dyslexia, learning difficulties, the blind,ADHD and the deaf to make them all equal. And have the same opertunity. Regardless of wealth. " If you are not clever enough, then you cannot be a rocket scientist. That's the entire point about having other educational rules to allow people to find their talent. The system should be set-up as far as is possible to allow talent and ability rather than wealth to govern your future. There will always be an advantage in having money, but it should be minimised as far as is possible. I'm not an education specialist who knows how to compensate for neurological conditions. There are (probably imperfect) systems in place now to try to the eat possible to compensate. What answers are you actually looking for? What is your idea? Leave it as it is? Spend less? So more? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? " I don't have anything to defend him with. I don't think he would offer much change from what we have. Although I do think a government run by him would be less self serving and corrupt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? I don't have anything to defend him with. I don't think he would offer much change from what we have. Although I do think a government run by him would be less self serving and corrupt. " I disagree with less self serving and corrupt. If we get to see a labour government I expect there to be a whole new world of self serving in a new flavour as the feet go under the table and once settled corruption will emerge again in different flavour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? " Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government?" Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day 
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM? "You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?"The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though 
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?"Obviously if it will be of a detrimental value to the country it should be shelved. So now moving on, he has nothing left, everything he has pledged he will take forward has been shelved, nationalisation of utilities, scrapping tuition fees, tax rises, Pr the list is long and leaves him nothing. So what type of leader is this, a liar or a dreamer? Can this man be trusted to steer the UK through troubled waters when he can't secure direction as the leader of the opposition? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? I don't have anything to defend him with. I don't think he would offer much change from what we have. Although I do think a government run by him would be less self serving and corrupt. I disagree with less self serving and corrupt. If we get to see a labour government I expect there to be a whole new world of self serving in a new flavour as the feet go under the table and once settled corruption will emerge again in different flavour. " I don't think we will ever know. But I do disagree with you. Although this is definitely not a defence of SKS. Labour won't be getting my vote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?"I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
Obviously if it will be of a detrimental value to the country it should be shelved.
So now moving on, he has nothing left, everything he has pledged he will take forward has been shelved, nationalisation of utilities, scrapping tuition fees, tax rises, Pr the list is long and leaves him nothing.
So what type of leader is this, a liar or a dreamer? Can this man be trusted to steer the UK through troubled waters when he can't secure direction as the leader of the opposition?"Dreamer is fine. Although, if he's changing his policies doesn't that make him a realist if he realises that the dreams can't be achieved? You said there's no problem in a U-turn if it's the right decision. Is it the right decision? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know."Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed. I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn. I'm sure you understand that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
""Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory? Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine "I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs. I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns. It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion."I asked this: 'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?' That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means. The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action. I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question. However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there "So we aren't talking about starmer anymore? I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation. The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there
So we aren't talking about starmer anymore?
I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation.
The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed."That was the principle that I wished to establish with the person I originally addressed this to. U-turns are not inherently a "bad" thing to do. As I said, I have no idea what the Labour party's reasoning is. That does not reflect particularly well on their communications, but it also does not it mean that it was the wrong thing to do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there
So we aren't talking about starmer anymore?
I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation.
The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed.
That was the principle that I wished to establish with the person I originally addressed this to. U-turns are not inherently a "bad" thing to do.
As I said, I have no idea what the Labour party's reasoning is. That does not reflect particularly well on their communications, but it also does not it mean that it was the wrong thing to do."A u-turn in isolation is not a bad thing, but every single pledge made can be seen as outrageously incompetent, no back bone to see things through and no grasp on the realities of the issues he was pledging to fix. Let the dust settle over the next 4 weeks and we will see how his poll rating is fairing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there
So we aren't talking about starmer anymore?
I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation.
The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed.
That was the principle that I wished to establish with the person I originally addressed this to. U-turns are not inherently a "bad" thing to do.
As I said, I have no idea what the Labour party's reasoning is. That does not reflect particularly well on their communications, but it also does not it mean that it was the wrong thing to do.
A u-turn in isolation is not a bad thing, but every single pledge made can be seen as outrageously incompetent, no back bone to see things through and no grasp on the realities of the issues he was pledging to fix.
Let the dust settle over the next 4 weeks and we will see how his poll rating is fairing. "Anything "can" be seen however anyone chooses to. Perhaps things have changed? Perhaps they have acted on feedback? I don't know. Perhaps you do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there
So we aren't talking about starmer anymore?
I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation.
The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed.
That was the principle that I wished to establish with the person I originally addressed this to. U-turns are not inherently a "bad" thing to do.
As I said, I have no idea what the Labour party's reasoning is. That does not reflect particularly well on their communications, but it also does not it mean that it was the wrong thing to do.
A u-turn in isolation is not a bad thing, but every single pledge made can be seen as outrageously incompetent, no back bone to see things through and no grasp on the realities of the issues he was pledging to fix.
Let the dust settle over the next 4 weeks and we will see how his poll rating is fairing.
Anything "can" be seen however anyone chooses to.
Perhaps things have changed?
Perhaps they have acted on feedback?
I don't know. Perhaps you do?"Perception is a greatest friend or your worst enemy, Starmer is chopping away at his. I was liking what he had to say, then I was not liking the u-turns and the final u-turn was one to many. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there
So we aren't talking about starmer anymore?
I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation.
The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed.
That was the principle that I wished to establish with the person I originally addressed this to. U-turns are not inherently a "bad" thing to do.
As I said, I have no idea what the Labour party's reasoning is. That does not reflect particularly well on their communications, but it also does not it mean that it was the wrong thing to do.
A u-turn in isolation is not a bad thing, but every single pledge made can be seen as outrageously incompetent, no back bone to see things through and no grasp on the realities of the issues he was pledging to fix.
Let the dust settle over the next 4 weeks and we will see how his poll rating is fairing.
Anything "can" be seen however anyone chooses to.
Perhaps things have changed?
Perhaps they have acted on feedback?
I don't know. Perhaps you do?
Perception is a greatest friend or your worst enemy, Starmer is chopping away at his.
I was liking what he had to say, then I was not liking the u-turns and the final u-turn was one to many.
"Presumably the change in policy has occurred because they cannot be delivered. There have been quite big negative shifts in the country's finances since they were first proposed. Should they be kept even if they know that they cannot now be delivered? Why do you think unpopular u-turns have been made? Who's it for? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there
So we aren't talking about starmer anymore?
I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation.
The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed.
That was the principle that I wished to establish with the person I originally addressed this to. U-turns are not inherently a "bad" thing to do.
As I said, I have no idea what the Labour party's reasoning is. That does not reflect particularly well on their communications, but it also does not it mean that it was the wrong thing to do.
A u-turn in isolation is not a bad thing, but every single pledge made can be seen as outrageously incompetent, no back bone to see things through and no grasp on the realities of the issues he was pledging to fix.
Let the dust settle over the next 4 weeks and we will see how his poll rating is fairing.
Anything "can" be seen however anyone chooses to.
Perhaps things have changed?
Perhaps they have acted on feedback?
I don't know. Perhaps you do?
Perception is a greatest friend or your worst enemy, Starmer is chopping away at his.
I was liking what he had to say, then I was not liking the u-turns and the final u-turn was one to many.
Presumably the change in policy has occurred because they cannot be delivered. There have been quite big negative shifts in the country's finances since they were first proposed.
Should they be kept even if they know that they cannot now be delivered?
Why do you think unpopular u-turns have been made? Who's it for?"Silly question... if it was deemed so important to pledge a change, I expect a reshuffle in expenditure to support, as would any reasonable person | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there
So we aren't talking about starmer anymore?
I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation.
The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed.
That was the principle that I wished to establish with the person I originally addressed this to. U-turns are not inherently a "bad" thing to do.
As I said, I have no idea what the Labour party's reasoning is. That does not reflect particularly well on their communications, but it also does not it mean that it was the wrong thing to do.
A u-turn in isolation is not a bad thing, but every single pledge made can be seen as outrageously incompetent, no back bone to see things through and no grasp on the realities of the issues he was pledging to fix.
Let the dust settle over the next 4 weeks and we will see how his poll rating is fairing.
Anything "can" be seen however anyone chooses to.
Perhaps things have changed?
Perhaps they have acted on feedback?
I don't know. Perhaps you do?
Perception is a greatest friend or your worst enemy, Starmer is chopping away at his.
I was liking what he had to say, then I was not liking the u-turns and the final u-turn was one to many.
Presumably the change in policy has occurred because they cannot be delivered. There have been quite big negative shifts in the country's finances since they were first proposed.
Should they be kept even if they know that they cannot now be delivered?
Why do you think unpopular u-turns have been made? Who's it for?
Silly question...
if it was deemed so important to pledge a change, I expect a reshuffle in expenditure to support, as would any reasonable person "It's clearly not that silly, because you didn't answer. Why did they make an unpopular U-turn if there was another option? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there
So we aren't talking about starmer anymore?
I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation.
The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed.
That was the principle that I wished to establish with the person I originally addressed this to. U-turns are not inherently a "bad" thing to do.
As I said, I have no idea what the Labour party's reasoning is. That does not reflect particularly well on their communications, but it also does not it mean that it was the wrong thing to do.
A u-turn in isolation is not a bad thing, but every single pledge made can be seen as outrageously incompetent, no back bone to see things through and no grasp on the realities of the issues he was pledging to fix.
Let the dust settle over the next 4 weeks and we will see how his poll rating is fairing.
Anything "can" be seen however anyone chooses to.
Perhaps things have changed?
Perhaps they have acted on feedback?
I don't know. Perhaps you do?
Perception is a greatest friend or your worst enemy, Starmer is chopping away at his.
I was liking what he had to say, then I was not liking the u-turns and the final u-turn was one to many.
Presumably the change in policy has occurred because they cannot be delivered. There have been quite big negative shifts in the country's finances since they were first proposed.
Should they be kept even if they know that they cannot now be delivered?
Why do you think unpopular u-turns have been made? Who's it for?
Silly question...
if it was deemed so important to pledge a change, I expect a reshuffle in expenditure to support, as would any reasonable person
It's clearly not that silly, because you didn't answer.
Why did they make an unpopular U-turn if there was another option?"That is the point, why is he continually making u-turns when they are damaging? It shows no consideration, proves he is using soundbites to grab attention and then realising what he was so passionate about can't be delivered, yet again as he throws them out in the most awkward of ways. Flip flop exactly sums him up and if the country are happy to put a labour government in power with a possible coalition then they will only have themselves to blame when the lights go out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there
So we aren't talking about starmer anymore?
I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation.
The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed.
That was the principle that I wished to establish with the person I originally addressed this to. U-turns are not inherently a "bad" thing to do.
As I said, I have no idea what the Labour party's reasoning is. That does not reflect particularly well on their communications, but it also does not it mean that it was the wrong thing to do.
A u-turn in isolation is not a bad thing, but every single pledge made can be seen as outrageously incompetent, no back bone to see things through and no grasp on the realities of the issues he was pledging to fix.
Let the dust settle over the next 4 weeks and we will see how his poll rating is fairing.
Anything "can" be seen however anyone chooses to.
Perhaps things have changed?
Perhaps they have acted on feedback?
I don't know. Perhaps you do?
Perception is a greatest friend or your worst enemy, Starmer is chopping away at his.
I was liking what he had to say, then I was not liking the u-turns and the final u-turn was one to many.
Presumably the change in policy has occurred because they cannot be delivered. There have been quite big negative shifts in the country's finances since they were first proposed.
Should they be kept even if they know that they cannot now be delivered?
Why do you think unpopular u-turns have been made? Who's it for?
Silly question...
if it was deemed so important to pledge a change, I expect a reshuffle in expenditure to support, as would any reasonable person
It's clearly not that silly, because you didn't answer.
Why did they make an unpopular U-turn if there was another option?
That is the point, why is he continually making u-turns when they are damaging?
It shows no consideration, proves he is using soundbites to grab attention and then realising what he was so passionate about can't be delivered, yet again as he throws them out in the most awkward of ways.
Flip flop exactly sums him up and if the country are happy to put a labour government in power with a possible coalition then they will only have themselves to blame when the lights go out. "Does it "show" what you claim? The UK's finances have deteriorated significantly since the policies were originally announced. Should this not be accounted for? I agree that the explanation of why these changes have been carried out are unclear to say the least and doesn't inspire confidence. However, I'm still not clear if you have an explanation for making an unpopular policy change other than some reasonably honest assessment of being able to deliver now, if circumstances are different. Do you have more faith after 13 years that the Tory party will deliver it's promises or improve anything? An election choice is a relative decision. Why will the "lights go out" with Labour and not the Conservatives who have been dimming them since they've been in power? Isn't voting for them not learning from actual experience? In fact, given the local election results, there's little indication that the Labour party's policy changes have had a significant negative effect on their perception. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there
So we aren't talking about starmer anymore?
I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation.
The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed.
That was the principle that I wished to establish with the person I originally addressed this to. U-turns are not inherently a "bad" thing to do.
As I said, I have no idea what the Labour party's reasoning is. That does not reflect particularly well on their communications, but it also does not it mean that it was the wrong thing to do.
A u-turn in isolation is not a bad thing, but every single pledge made can be seen as outrageously incompetent, no back bone to see things through and no grasp on the realities of the issues he was pledging to fix.
Let the dust settle over the next 4 weeks and we will see how his poll rating is fairing.
Anything "can" be seen however anyone chooses to.
Perhaps things have changed?
Perhaps they have acted on feedback?
I don't know. Perhaps you do?
Perception is a greatest friend or your worst enemy, Starmer is chopping away at his.
I was liking what he had to say, then I was not liking the u-turns and the final u-turn was one to many.
Presumably the change in policy has occurred because they cannot be delivered. There have been quite big negative shifts in the country's finances since they were first proposed.
Should they be kept even if they know that they cannot now be delivered?
Why do you think unpopular u-turns have been made? Who's it for?
Silly question...
if it was deemed so important to pledge a change, I expect a reshuffle in expenditure to support, as would any reasonable person
It's clearly not that silly, because you didn't answer.
Why did they make an unpopular U-turn if there was another option?
That is the point, why is he continually making u-turns when they are damaging?
It shows no consideration, proves he is using soundbites to grab attention and then realising what he was so passionate about can't be delivered, yet again as he throws them out in the most awkward of ways.
Flip flop exactly sums him up and if the country are happy to put a labour government in power with a possible coalition then they will only have themselves to blame when the lights go out.
Does it "show" what you claim?
The UK's finances have deteriorated significantly since the policies were originally announced.
Should this not be accounted for?
I agree that the explanation of why these changes have been carried out are unclear to say the least and doesn't inspire confidence.
However, I'm still not clear if you have an explanation for making an unpopular policy change other than some reasonably honest assessment of being able to deliver now, if circumstances are different.
Do you have more faith after 13 years that the Tory party will deliver it's promises or improve anything? An election choice is a relative decision. Why will the "lights go out" with Labour and not the Conservatives who have been dimming them since they've been in power? Isn't voting for them not learning from actual experience?
In fact, given the local election results, there's little indication that the Labour party's policy changes have had a significant negative effect on their perception."My expectation of a coalition is probable and I have no confidence in the success of any such coalition. I would prefer a labour majority over power sharing and what I expect to be an ineffective agreement | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there
So we aren't talking about starmer anymore?
I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation.
The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed.
That was the principle that I wished to establish with the person I originally addressed this to. U-turns are not inherently a "bad" thing to do.
As I said, I have no idea what the Labour party's reasoning is. That does not reflect particularly well on their communications, but it also does not it mean that it was the wrong thing to do.
A u-turn in isolation is not a bad thing, but every single pledge made can be seen as outrageously incompetent, no back bone to see things through and no grasp on the realities of the issues he was pledging to fix.
Let the dust settle over the next 4 weeks and we will see how his poll rating is fairing.
Anything "can" be seen however anyone chooses to.
Perhaps things have changed?
Perhaps they have acted on feedback?
I don't know. Perhaps you do?
Perception is a greatest friend or your worst enemy, Starmer is chopping away at his.
I was liking what he had to say, then I was not liking the u-turns and the final u-turn was one to many.
Presumably the change in policy has occurred because they cannot be delivered. There have been quite big negative shifts in the country's finances since they were first proposed.
Should they be kept even if they know that they cannot now be delivered?
Why do you think unpopular u-turns have been made? Who's it for?
Silly question...
if it was deemed so important to pledge a change, I expect a reshuffle in expenditure to support, as would any reasonable person
It's clearly not that silly, because you didn't answer.
Why did they make an unpopular U-turn if there was another option?
That is the point, why is he continually making u-turns when they are damaging?
It shows no consideration, proves he is using soundbites to grab attention and then realising what he was so passionate about can't be delivered, yet again as he throws them out in the most awkward of ways.
Flip flop exactly sums him up and if the country are happy to put a labour government in power with a possible coalition then they will only have themselves to blame when the lights go out.
Does it "show" what you claim?
The UK's finances have deteriorated significantly since the policies were originally announced.
Should this not be accounted for?
I agree that the explanation of why these changes have been carried out are unclear to say the least and doesn't inspire confidence.
However, I'm still not clear if you have an explanation for making an unpopular policy change other than some reasonably honest assessment of being able to deliver now, if circumstances are different.
Do you have more faith after 13 years that the Tory party will deliver it's promises or improve anything? An election choice is a relative decision. Why will the "lights go out" with Labour and not the Conservatives who have been dimming them since they've been in power? Isn't voting for them not learning from actual experience?
In fact, given the local election results, there's little indication that the Labour party's policy changes have had a significant negative effect on their perception.
My expectation of a coalition is probable and I have no confidence in the success of any such coalition.
I would prefer a labour majority over power sharing and what I expect to be an ineffective agreement "Much of the world manages quite well with coalitions. Why are unpopular policy changes being made? Is it "weak" or "dishonest". Might the significant economic changes in the last year mean that they may now be necessary? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there
So we aren't talking about starmer anymore?
I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation.
The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed.
That was the principle that I wished to establish with the person I originally addressed this to. U-turns are not inherently a "bad" thing to do.
As I said, I have no idea what the Labour party's reasoning is. That does not reflect particularly well on their communications, but it also does not it mean that it was the wrong thing to do.
A u-turn in isolation is not a bad thing, but every single pledge made can be seen as outrageously incompetent, no back bone to see things through and no grasp on the realities of the issues he was pledging to fix.
Let the dust settle over the next 4 weeks and we will see how his poll rating is fairing.
Anything "can" be seen however anyone chooses to.
Perhaps things have changed?
Perhaps they have acted on feedback?
I don't know. Perhaps you do?
Perception is a greatest friend or your worst enemy, Starmer is chopping away at his.
I was liking what he had to say, then I was not liking the u-turns and the final u-turn was one to many.
Presumably the change in policy has occurred because they cannot be delivered. There have been quite big negative shifts in the country's finances since they were first proposed.
Should they be kept even if they know that they cannot now be delivered?
Why do you think unpopular u-turns have been made? Who's it for?
Silly question...
if it was deemed so important to pledge a change, I expect a reshuffle in expenditure to support, as would any reasonable person
It's clearly not that silly, because you didn't answer.
Why did they make an unpopular U-turn if there was another option?
That is the point, why is he continually making u-turns when they are damaging?
It shows no consideration, proves he is using soundbites to grab attention and then realising what he was so passionate about can't be delivered, yet again as he throws them out in the most awkward of ways.
Flip flop exactly sums him up and if the country are happy to put a labour government in power with a possible coalition then they will only have themselves to blame when the lights go out.
Does it "show" what you claim?
The UK's finances have deteriorated significantly since the policies were originally announced.
Should this not be accounted for?
I agree that the explanation of why these changes have been carried out are unclear to say the least and doesn't inspire confidence.
However, I'm still not clear if you have an explanation for making an unpopular policy change other than some reasonably honest assessment of being able to deliver now, if circumstances are different.
Do you have more faith after 13 years that the Tory party will deliver it's promises or improve anything? An election choice is a relative decision. Why will the "lights go out" with Labour and not the Conservatives who have been dimming them since they've been in power? Isn't voting for them not learning from actual experience?
In fact, given the local election results, there's little indication that the Labour party's policy changes have had a significant negative effect on their perception.
My expectation of a coalition is probable and I have no confidence in the success of any such coalition.
I would prefer a labour majority over power sharing and what I expect to be an ineffective agreement "I'm not sure when the pledge was originally made but if it was pre covid then I can understand that we as a country are not where we was expected to be like most countries. This makes it difficult to stick to things that are expensive to do. Maybe he should not have made it a firm commitment in the first place. I understand your view on coalition government. I guess because some don't last long (Italy in the past). However it does tend to temper more extreme policies from what I see. Having said that, I think the lib dems will demand a lot of Labour to go into formal coalition given their past experience | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The debate of tuition fees is cracking but let's not forget the main point is another u-turn by Starmer, his continuous blundering through interviews, his broken pledges on nationalising our utilities means all pledges have now been broken. Ill advised or dreamer? So what type of leader of the country can we expect, his track record is there for all to see! I actually don't see many on here defend him with any conviction, the over used "he has got to be less shit than the tories" is about as good as it gets..... What can we expect from SKS as PM? Why does changing policy equate to failure? Why is a U-turn wrong, especially if made before a public election rather than once in power? Companies do it all the time and it's called being agile and responsive. Usually gets a bonus payment. What "track record" exists for Keir Starmer in delivering policy in Government? Care to discuss any pledges he has, I've got 10 seconds
I will pass on the conversation on the pledges he has back tracked on, I haven't got all day
Your final point, "what track record exists for SKS delivering policy in government", well luckily for us he hasn't had the chance to u-turn on actual policy yet.
His track record as leader of the opposition setting out the parties direction and pledges would indicate that he might not do very well, do you have any thoughts why he would change his ways if he was in PM?
You can discuss anything you like, although amazed that nobody has told you that you can only talk about tuition fees
You haven't actually answered why changing policies or pledges before an election is either wrong or bad?
If you can address that we can move on to developing the discussion.
In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?
The debate has clearly moved on to wider policy. Nice try though
I'll answer your last question, but I need some information first. Why has he u-turned on so many pledges? Is it because they were ill thought or because there's a change in circumstances?
I'm not "trying" anything. Just establishing that you are the only person that can define what it's possible to talk about on any thread
I don't know, I'm not Kier Starmer.
You don't want to answer then. Fine. I don't need to know.
Nice to see you admit to another personal dig at me, you really should give that a rest, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed.
I want to give an answer but its not possible without knowing the reason for the uturn.
I'm sure you understand that.
"Admit"? Does your ego need this to be some sort of a micro-victory?
Answering does not require any additional information at all. As I said, you not wanting to is fine
I don't need any micro-victories, I'll just keep pointing out your personal digs.
I have explicitly stated I want to give an answer. I can't until I know the reason for the u-turns.
It's not hard to understand someone would like facts before reaching a conclusion.
I asked this:
'In principle, if delivering a policy turns out to not be a good idea for the country, should it be delivered anyway or should you "U-turn"?'
That is not specific to Kier Starmer or anyone else. That is what "in principle" means.
The second part tells you that it is a better outcome to u-turn than continue with the current course of action.
I am writing this, because, judging by your demands for more information, you didn't seem to understand the words in the question.
However, if that is really no clearer for you then I'm more than happy to leave it there
So we aren't talking about starmer anymore?
I'll hold my hands up and say I didn't read the question in isolation.
The answer to that is of course a uturn would be the answer. I'd still like to know why the uturn was needed.
That was the principle that I wished to establish with the person I originally addressed this to. U-turns are not inherently a "bad" thing to do.
As I said, I have no idea what the Labour party's reasoning is. That does not reflect particularly well on their communications, but it also does not it mean that it was the wrong thing to do.
A u-turn in isolation is not a bad thing, but every single pledge made can be seen as outrageously incompetent, no back bone to see things through and no grasp on the realities of the issues he was pledging to fix.
Let the dust settle over the next 4 weeks and we will see how his poll rating is fairing.
Anything "can" be seen however anyone chooses to.
Perhaps things have changed?
Perhaps they have acted on feedback?
I don't know. Perhaps you do?
Perception is a greatest friend or your worst enemy, Starmer is chopping away at his.
I was liking what he had to say, then I was not liking the u-turns and the final u-turn was one to many.
Presumably the change in policy has occurred because they cannot be delivered. There have been quite big negative shifts in the country's finances since they were first proposed.
Should they be kept even if they know that they cannot now be delivered?
Why do you think unpopular u-turns have been made? Who's it for?
Silly question...
if it was deemed so important to pledge a change, I expect a reshuffle in expenditure to support, as would any reasonable person
It's clearly not that silly, because you didn't answer.
Why did they make an unpopular U-turn if there was another option?
That is the point, why is he continually making u-turns when they are damaging?
It shows no consideration, proves he is using soundbites to grab attention and then realising what he was so passionate about can't be delivered, yet again as he throws them out in the most awkward of ways.
Flip flop exactly sums him up and if the country are happy to put a labour government in power with a possible coalition then they will only have themselves to blame when the lights go out.
Does it "show" what you claim?
The UK's finances have deteriorated significantly since the policies were originally announced.
Should this not be accounted for?
I agree that the explanation of why these changes have been carried out are unclear to say the least and doesn't inspire confidence.
However, I'm still not clear if you have an explanation for making an unpopular policy change other than some reasonably honest assessment of being able to deliver now, if circumstances are different.
Do you have more faith after 13 years that the Tory party will deliver it's promises or improve anything? An election choice is a relative decision. Why will the "lights go out" with Labour and not the Conservatives who have been dimming them since they've been in power? Isn't voting for them not learning from actual experience?
In fact, given the local election results, there's little indication that the Labour party's policy changes have had a significant negative effect on their perception.
My expectation of a coalition is probable and I have no confidence in the success of any such coalition.
I would prefer a labour majority over power sharing and what I expect to be an ineffective agreement
I'm not sure when the pledge was originally made but if it was pre covid then I can understand that we as a country are not where we was expected to be like most countries. This makes it difficult to stick to things that are expensive to do. Maybe he should not have made it a firm commitment in the first place. I understand your view on coalition government. I guess because some don't last long (Italy in the past). However it does tend to temper more extreme policies from what I see. Having said that, I think the lib dems will demand a lot of Labour to go into formal coalition given their past experience"I doubt it would be formal, based on the LibDems past experience. No good deed goes unpunished, sadly. I don't really believe that. I still think think that most people do try to do the right thing. Perhaps not in power politics... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)? You seem to have followed my path… I remember my “grant” was funded by LEA, local education authority in the later part of the 80’s. I then fell into debt with a student loan as things changed, but I paid my student loan back quickly as I earned the money to do that within 5 years of leaving education. During my time of study I needed to work in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet, I worked in depots unloading freight lorries until 3 am and a bar / waiter job at her weekend. I was often late to studies and always against the clock on deadlines. It wasn’t the natural path for me to pursue education, simply because my parents had not got the money, my grant and student loan made it possible. My personal opinion is that any person who has the capacity to expand their education and is committed to doing so, should be supported by all means possible to make that happen. We need educated people in this country, we need to support those coming up behind us to be their best selves and that is through education and experiences that enable them for the future. Starmer changing course annoys me as it clearly shows where he is willing to spend money and more importantly where he won’t! Levelling up more like dumbing down We really are not the country we think that we are. We have been unable to pay the entire public services cost of living pays rises for over a decade. We can barely keep the lights on in hospitals and schools. I cannot see anything at all being added to the public purse by anyone until we grow as an economy and actual collect some more tax as a consequence. I think that all that any party can do is shift priorities, not be corrupt and not spend money and effort on distractions for publicity." Yet we seem to find the money to give politicians a regular pay rise, despite the fact they seem to do a bad job of it..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)? You seem to have followed my path… I remember my “grant” was funded by LEA, local education authority in the later part of the 80’s. I then fell into debt with a student loan as things changed, but I paid my student loan back quickly as I earned the money to do that within 5 years of leaving education. During my time of study I needed to work in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet, I worked in depots unloading freight lorries until 3 am and a bar / waiter job at her weekend. I was often late to studies and always against the clock on deadlines. It wasn’t the natural path for me to pursue education, simply because my parents had not got the money, my grant and student loan made it possible. My personal opinion is that any person who has the capacity to expand their education and is committed to doing so, should be supported by all means possible to make that happen. We need educated people in this country, we need to support those coming up behind us to be their best selves and that is through education and experiences that enable them for the future. Starmer changing course annoys me as it clearly shows where he is willing to spend money and more importantly where he won’t! Levelling up more like dumbing down We really are not the country we think that we are. We have been unable to pay the entire public services cost of living pays rises for over a decade. We can barely keep the lights on in hospitals and schools. I cannot see anything at all being added to the public purse by anyone until we grow as an economy and actual collect some more tax as a consequence. I think that all that any party can do is shift priorities, not be corrupt and not spend money and effort on distractions for publicity. Yet we seem to find the money to give politicians a regular pay rise, despite the fact they seem to do a bad job of it....." Just like any other job, if the pay is not acceptable then people don't want to do it. It's not going to discourage corruption nor is it going to encourage highly competent people to leave their careers. MPs learn less than trainee solicitors in a large legal firm or trainee bankers. No more than an accountant with a few years of experience or an experienced GP. What is your expectations? There aren't, actually, that many MPs so the bill to the country is not that high. The total cost of 6 was £132.5 million in the 2020-21. About £203k each. That includes expenses and staff pay. Four members of staff at a low £25k each is £100k. The average is skewed by the higher pay and expenses of Ministers. Just to note that it's an easy target to kick, but less clearcut than it might seem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)? You seem to have followed my path… I remember my “grant” was funded by LEA, local education authority in the later part of the 80’s. I then fell into debt with a student loan as things changed, but I paid my student loan back quickly as I earned the money to do that within 5 years of leaving education. During my time of study I needed to work in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet, I worked in depots unloading freight lorries until 3 am and a bar / waiter job at her weekend. I was often late to studies and always against the clock on deadlines. It wasn’t the natural path for me to pursue education, simply because my parents had not got the money, my grant and student loan made it possible. My personal opinion is that any person who has the capacity to expand their education and is committed to doing so, should be supported by all means possible to make that happen. We need educated people in this country, we need to support those coming up behind us to be their best selves and that is through education and experiences that enable them for the future. Starmer changing course annoys me as it clearly shows where he is willing to spend money and more importantly where he won’t! Levelling up more like dumbing down We really are not the country we think that we are. We have been unable to pay the entire public services cost of living pays rises for over a decade. We can barely keep the lights on in hospitals and schools. I cannot see anything at all being added to the public purse by anyone until we grow as an economy and actual collect some more tax as a consequence. I think that all that any party can do is shift priorities, not be corrupt and not spend money and effort on distractions for publicity. Yet we seem to find the money to give politicians a regular pay rise, despite the fact they seem to do a bad job of it..... Just like any other job, if the pay is not acceptable then people don't want to do it. It's not going to discourage corruption nor is it going to encourage highly competent people to leave their careers. MPs learn less than trainee solicitors in a large legal firm or trainee bankers. No more than an accountant with a few years of experience or an experienced GP. What is your expectations? There aren't, actually, that many MPs so the bill to the country is not that high. The total cost of 6 was £132.5 million in the 2020-21. About £203k each. That includes expenses and staff pay. Four members of staff at a low £25k each is £100k. The average is skewed by the higher pay and expenses of Ministers. Just to note that it's an easy target to kick, but less clearcut than it might seem." MPs are so badly paid for the expectation we have of them that it’s near impossible to get good ones. The head teacher of my local academy in the uk , responsible for 3 schools / 200 staff is paid 3x the PM. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)? You seem to have followed my path… I remember my “grant” was funded by LEA, local education authority in the later part of the 80’s. I then fell into debt with a student loan as things changed, but I paid my student loan back quickly as I earned the money to do that within 5 years of leaving education. During my time of study I needed to work in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet, I worked in depots unloading freight lorries until 3 am and a bar / waiter job at her weekend. I was often late to studies and always against the clock on deadlines. It wasn’t the natural path for me to pursue education, simply because my parents had not got the money, my grant and student loan made it possible. My personal opinion is that any person who has the capacity to expand their education and is committed to doing so, should be supported by all means possible to make that happen. We need educated people in this country, we need to support those coming up behind us to be their best selves and that is through education and experiences that enable them for the future. Starmer changing course annoys me as it clearly shows where he is willing to spend money and more importantly where he won’t! Levelling up more like dumbing down We really are not the country we think that we are. We have been unable to pay the entire public services cost of living pays rises for over a decade. We can barely keep the lights on in hospitals and schools. I cannot see anything at all being added to the public purse by anyone until we grow as an economy and actual collect some more tax as a consequence. I think that all that any party can do is shift priorities, not be corrupt and not spend money and effort on distractions for publicity. Yet we seem to find the money to give politicians a regular pay rise, despite the fact they seem to do a bad job of it..... Just like any other job, if the pay is not acceptable then people don't want to do it. It's not going to discourage corruption nor is it going to encourage highly competent people to leave their careers. MPs learn less than trainee solicitors in a large legal firm or trainee bankers. No more than an accountant with a few years of experience or an experienced GP. What is your expectations? There aren't, actually, that many MPs so the bill to the country is not that high. The total cost of 6 was £132.5 million in the 2020-21. About £203k each. That includes expenses and staff pay. Four members of staff at a low £25k each is £100k. The average is skewed by the higher pay and expenses of Ministers. Just to note that it's an easy target to kick, but less clearcut than it might seem." MP salary = £86.5k + generous expenses No qualification required Average salary of a trainee solicitor in the UK is £35k. UG + PG degrees required. Average salary of a trainee banker in the UK is £55k. UG degree + certification required. Average accountant salary in the UK is £45k. Multiple qualifications required. Source: Glass door / Indeed / Prospects Average GP salary in England is £77.5k. Required training: Medical degree 4-6yrs + Foundation training 2yrs + GP training 3 yrs. (Source: BMA). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)? You seem to have followed my path… I remember my “grant” was funded by LEA, local education authority in the later part of the 80’s. I then fell into debt with a student loan as things changed, but I paid my student loan back quickly as I earned the money to do that within 5 years of leaving education. During my time of study I needed to work in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet, I worked in depots unloading freight lorries until 3 am and a bar / waiter job at her weekend. I was often late to studies and always against the clock on deadlines. It wasn’t the natural path for me to pursue education, simply because my parents had not got the money, my grant and student loan made it possible. My personal opinion is that any person who has the capacity to expand their education and is committed to doing so, should be supported by all means possible to make that happen. We need educated people in this country, we need to support those coming up behind us to be their best selves and that is through education and experiences that enable them for the future. Starmer changing course annoys me as it clearly shows where he is willing to spend money and more importantly where he won’t! Levelling up more like dumbing down We really are not the country we think that we are. We have been unable to pay the entire public services cost of living pays rises for over a decade. We can barely keep the lights on in hospitals and schools. I cannot see anything at all being added to the public purse by anyone until we grow as an economy and actual collect some more tax as a consequence. I think that all that any party can do is shift priorities, not be corrupt and not spend money and effort on distractions for publicity. Yet we seem to find the money to give politicians a regular pay rise, despite the fact they seem to do a bad job of it..... Just like any other job, if the pay is not acceptable then people don't want to do it. It's not going to discourage corruption nor is it going to encourage highly competent people to leave their careers. MPs learn less than trainee solicitors in a large legal firm or trainee bankers. No more than an accountant with a few years of experience or an experienced GP. What is your expectations? There aren't, actually, that many MPs so the bill to the country is not that high. The total cost of 6 was £132.5 million in the 2020-21. About £203k each. That includes expenses and staff pay. Four members of staff at a low £25k each is £100k. The average is skewed by the higher pay and expenses of Ministers. Just to note that it's an easy target to kick, but less clearcut than it might seem. MP salary = £86.5k + generous expenses No qualification required Average salary of a trainee solicitor in the UK is £35k. UG + PG degrees required. Average salary of a trainee banker in the UK is £55k. UG degree + certification required. Average accountant salary in the UK is £45k. Multiple qualifications required. Source: Glass door / Indeed / Prospects Average GP salary in England is £77.5k. Required training: Medical degree 4-6yrs + Foundation training 2yrs + GP training 3 yrs. (Source: BMA)." Apologies, misquoted, but was referring to top firms: Magic Circle law firm, newly qualified solicitor, average £107k First year investment banking salary £60k-£90k including salary Newly qualified GP £77k Comparing newly qualified top performers to MPs who you would hope are people with experience of life and work. Have a look at someone with a decade of work experience. "Generous expenses" for life away from home and paying for staff. Why does it suprise you that there is so much incompetence? Companies use salary to attract talent up to a point. Why shouldn't politics? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)? You seem to have followed my path… I remember my “grant” was funded by LEA, local education authority in the later part of the 80’s. I then fell into debt with a student loan as things changed, but I paid my student loan back quickly as I earned the money to do that within 5 years of leaving education. During my time of study I needed to work in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet, I worked in depots unloading freight lorries until 3 am and a bar / waiter job at her weekend. I was often late to studies and always against the clock on deadlines. It wasn’t the natural path for me to pursue education, simply because my parents had not got the money, my grant and student loan made it possible. My personal opinion is that any person who has the capacity to expand their education and is committed to doing so, should be supported by all means possible to make that happen. We need educated people in this country, we need to support those coming up behind us to be their best selves and that is through education and experiences that enable them for the future. Starmer changing course annoys me as it clearly shows where he is willing to spend money and more importantly where he won’t! Levelling up more like dumbing down We really are not the country we think that we are. We have been unable to pay the entire public services cost of living pays rises for over a decade. We can barely keep the lights on in hospitals and schools. I cannot see anything at all being added to the public purse by anyone until we grow as an economy and actual collect some more tax as a consequence. I think that all that any party can do is shift priorities, not be corrupt and not spend money and effort on distractions for publicity. Yet we seem to find the money to give politicians a regular pay rise, despite the fact they seem to do a bad job of it..... Just like any other job, if the pay is not acceptable then people don't want to do it. It's not going to discourage corruption nor is it going to encourage highly competent people to leave their careers. MPs learn less than trainee solicitors in a large legal firm or trainee bankers. No more than an accountant with a few years of experience or an experienced GP. What is your expectations? There aren't, actually, that many MPs so the bill to the country is not that high. The total cost of 6 was £132.5 million in the 2020-21. About £203k each. That includes expenses and staff pay. Four members of staff at a low £25k each is £100k. The average is skewed by the higher pay and expenses of Ministers. Just to note that it's an easy target to kick, but less clearcut than it might seem. MP salary = £86.5k + generous expenses No qualification required Average salary of a trainee solicitor in the UK is £35k. UG + PG degrees required. Average salary of a trainee banker in the UK is £55k. UG degree + certification required. Average accountant salary in the UK is £45k. Multiple qualifications required. Source: Glass door / Indeed / Prospects Average GP salary in England is £77.5k. Required training: Medical degree 4-6yrs + Foundation training 2yrs + GP training 3 yrs. (Source: BMA). Apologies, misquoted, but was referring to top firms: Magic Circle law firm, newly qualified solicitor, average £107k First year investment banking salary £60k-£90k including salary Newly qualified GP £77k Comparing newly qualified top performers to MPs who you would hope are people with experience of life and work. Have a look at someone with a decade of work experience. "Generous expenses" for life away from home and paying for staff. Why does it suprise you that there is so much incompetence? Companies use salary to attract talent up to a point. Why shouldn't politics?" You've misquoted again on GP salaries and it's hard to take you seriously when you've had the chance to correct your original statement. If MPs were forbidden from taking second jobs and gaining supplementary incomes which they do across all the parties - then I'd consider the argument that higher pay would attract a better calibre. BUT looking at the experience and background of many current MPs and Ministers - where's the proof that we aren't attracting the best of the best? That many of them are incompetent? Were they incompetent in their previous line of work? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it?" Tuition fees were not introduced by the coalotion government of 2010, they were introduced by Tony Blair's Labour government. If you recall, the LibDems 2010 Manifesto pledge was to scrap tuition fees - which would have been rather difficult to achieve if they hadn't already been introduced. As for University education being paid for by government, let's get it right, the government has no money - it's all paid for by the taxpayer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This has been a well discussed topic before so... Starmer says Tuition Fees will not be abolished. Green Party are not happy.... Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, said: "This is the latest U-turn from Keir Starmer’s Labour and this time it’s students who are paying a heavy price. The Green party believes tuition fees should be scrapped and grants restored. Higher education is a public good and should therefore be properly funded by government. Students in England pay some of the highest fees in the world, while in Scotland, Germany and Sweden university education is free. This shows that the whopping £9,000 charge for students, introduced by the coalition government and now backed by Labour, is a political choice. Publicly funded higher education is not only possible but essential to a society committed to equality and social mobility." What do you think, should higher education be free? If so, only for certain courses? Or blanket free higher education to those who want it? Tuition fees were not introduced by the coalotion government of 2010, they were introduced by Tony Blair's Labour government. If you recall, the LibDems 2010 Manifesto pledge was to scrap tuition fees - which would have been rather difficult to achieve if they hadn't already been introduced. As for University education being paid for by government, let's get it right, the government has no money - it's all paid for by the taxpayer" Tuition fees were raised to £9k by the coalition though, who had said they would abolish them in the run up to the 2010 GE. HE is not only funded by the taxpayer. Universities are also funded by charities, international research grants and their own fundraising. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Genuine question as I have no idea of the answer. Further Education was free. I certainly had a grant. How was that funded previously (presumably through taxation)? You seem to have followed my path… I remember my “grant” was funded by LEA, local education authority in the later part of the 80’s. I then fell into debt with a student loan as things changed, but I paid my student loan back quickly as I earned the money to do that within 5 years of leaving education. During my time of study I needed to work in the evenings and weekends to make ends meet, I worked in depots unloading freight lorries until 3 am and a bar / waiter job at her weekend. I was often late to studies and always against the clock on deadlines. It wasn’t the natural path for me to pursue education, simply because my parents had not got the money, my grant and student loan made it possible. My personal opinion is that any person who has the capacity to expand their education and is committed to doing so, should be supported by all means possible to make that happen. We need educated people in this country, we need to support those coming up behind us to be their best selves and that is through education and experiences that enable them for the future. Starmer changing course annoys me as it clearly shows where he is willing to spend money and more importantly where he won’t! Levelling up more like dumbing down We really are not the country we think that we are. We have been unable to pay the entire public services cost of living pays rises for over a decade. We can barely keep the lights on in hospitals and schools. I cannot see anything at all being added to the public purse by anyone until we grow as an economy and actual collect some more tax as a consequence. I think that all that any party can do is shift priorities, not be corrupt and not spend money and effort on distractions for publicity. Yet we seem to find the money to give politicians a regular pay rise, despite the fact they seem to do a bad job of it..... Just like any other job, if the pay is not acceptable then people don't want to do it. It's not going to discourage corruption nor is it going to encourage highly competent people to leave their careers. MPs learn less than trainee solicitors in a large legal firm or trainee bankers. No more than an accountant with a few years of experience or an experienced GP. What is your expectations? There aren't, actually, that many MPs so the bill to the country is not that high. The total cost of 6 was £132.5 million in the 2020-21. About £203k each. That includes expenses and staff pay. Four members of staff at a low £25k each is £100k. The average is skewed by the higher pay and expenses of Ministers. Just to note that it's an easy target to kick, but less clearcut than it might seem. MP salary = £86.5k + generous expenses No qualification required Average salary of a trainee solicitor in the UK is £35k. UG + PG degrees required. Average salary of a trainee banker in the UK is £55k. UG degree + certification required. Average accountant salary in the UK is £45k. Multiple qualifications required. Source: Glass door / Indeed / Prospects Average GP salary in England is £77.5k. Required training: Medical degree 4-6yrs + Foundation training 2yrs + GP training 3 yrs. (Source: BMA). Apologies, misquoted, but was referring to top firms: Magic Circle law firm, newly qualified solicitor, average £107k First year investment banking salary £60k-£90k including salary Newly qualified GP £77k Comparing newly qualified top performers to MPs who you would hope are people with experience of life and work. Have a look at someone with a decade of work experience. "Generous expenses" for life away from home and paying for staff. Why does it suprise you that there is so much incompetence? Companies use salary to attract talent up to a point. Why shouldn't politics? You've misquoted again on GP salaries and it's hard to take you seriously when you've had the chance to correct your original statement. If MPs were forbidden from taking second jobs and gaining supplementary incomes which they do across all the parties - then I'd consider the argument that higher pay would attract a better calibre. BUT looking at the experience and background of many current MPs and Ministers - where's the proof that we aren't attracting the best of the best? That many of them are incompetent? Were they incompetent in their previous line of work? " If the GP has just completed their training, then they are newly qualified as GPs, aren't they? You can do better than deliberately misinterpreting what I am writing to try to dismiss it. The ones who are incompetent do appear to have been incompetent in their previous line of work or didn't have a previous line of work other than politics. I regularly work with more competent thoughtful people than I see in Parliament. I am also sure that there are many who are, quietly, doing a very good job but the publicity and power hungry are the ones we hear the most from. Do you think that a lower salary would attract better talent? Parliament is not attracting the breadth of experience and knowledge outside of politics that it used to. Salary is only part of that. The constant press scrutiny and cynical view of the public also plays a part, as are other factors. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" MPs learn less than trainee solicitors in a large legal firm or trainee bankers. No more than an accountant with a few years of experience or an experienced GP. MP salary = £86.5k + generous expenses No qualification required Average GP salary in England is £77.5k. Required training: Medical degree 4-6yrs + Foundation training 2yrs + GP training 3 yrs. (Source: BMA). Apologies, misquoted, but was referring to top firms: Newly qualified GP £77k Comparing newly qualified top performers to MPs who you would hope are people with experience of life and work. Have a look at someone with a decade of work experience. "Generous expenses" for life away from home and paying for staff. Why does it suprise you that there is so much incompetence? Companies use salary to attract talent up to a point. Why shouldn't politics? You've misquoted again on GP salaries and it's hard to take you seriously when you've had the chance to correct your original statement. If MPs were forbidden from taking second jobs and gaining supplementary incomes which they do across all the parties - then I'd consider the argument that higher pay would attract a better calibre. BUT looking at the experience and background of many current MPs and Ministers - where's the proof that we aren't attracting the best of the best? That many of them are incompetent? Were they incompetent in their previous line of work? If the GP has just completed their training, then they are newly qualified as GPs, aren't they? You can do better than deliberately misinterpreting what I am writing to try to dismiss it. The ones who are incompetent do appear to have been incompetent in their previous line of work or didn't have a previous line of work other than politics. I regularly work with more competent thoughtful people than I see in Parliament. I am also sure that there are many who are, quietly, doing a very good job but the publicity and power hungry are the ones we hear the most from. Do you think that a lower salary would attract better talent? Parliament is not attracting the breadth of experience and knowledge outside of politics that it used to. Salary is only part of that. The constant press scrutiny and cynical view of the public also plays a part, as are other factors." I didn't misinterpret what you said. You're claiming again that MPs earn less than an MP. They don't. They earn £86k. The average GP earns £77k with 9 years of training. And this is derailing the topic so I am done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" MPs learn less than trainee solicitors in a large legal firm or trainee bankers. No more than an accountant with a few years of experience or an experienced GP. MP salary = £86.5k + generous expenses No qualification required Average GP salary in England is £77.5k. Required training: Medical degree 4-6yrs + Foundation training 2yrs + GP training 3 yrs. (Source: BMA). Apologies, misquoted, but was referring to top firms: Newly qualified GP £77k Comparing newly qualified top performers to MPs who you would hope are people with experience of life and work. Have a look at someone with a decade of work experience. "Generous expenses" for life away from home and paying for staff. Why does it suprise you that there is so much incompetence? Companies use salary to attract talent up to a point. Why shouldn't politics? You've misquoted again on GP salaries and it's hard to take you seriously when you've had the chance to correct your original statement. If MPs were forbidden from taking second jobs and gaining supplementary incomes which they do across all the parties - then I'd consider the argument that higher pay would attract a better calibre. BUT looking at the experience and background of many current MPs and Ministers - where's the proof that we aren't attracting the best of the best? That many of them are incompetent? Were they incompetent in their previous line of work? If the GP has just completed their training, then they are newly qualified as GPs, aren't they? You can do better than deliberately misinterpreting what I am writing to try to dismiss it. The ones who are incompetent do appear to have been incompetent in their previous line of work or didn't have a previous line of work other than politics. I regularly work with more competent thoughtful people than I see in Parliament. I am also sure that there are many who are, quietly, doing a very good job but the publicity and power hungry are the ones we hear the most from. Do you think that a lower salary would attract better talent? Parliament is not attracting the breadth of experience and knowledge outside of politics that it used to. Salary is only part of that. The constant press scrutiny and cynical view of the public also plays a part, as are other factors. I didn't misinterpret what you said. You're claiming again that MPs earn less than an MP. They don't. They earn £86k. The average GP earns £77k with 9 years of training. And this is derailing the topic so I am done. " I agreed that GPs were paid less. I even wrote it down. The overall point was that MPs are not paid excessively with respect to other professionals. If you think that the 650 people who make the UKs laws should earn less then how do you think that will improve the quality of those doing the job? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" MPs learn less than trainee solicitors in a large legal firm or trainee bankers. No more than an accountant with a few years of experience or an experienced GP. MP salary = £86.5k + generous expenses No qualification required Average GP salary in England is £77.5k. Required training: Medical degree 4-6yrs + Foundation training 2yrs + GP training 3 yrs. (Source: BMA). Apologies, misquoted, but was referring to top firms: Newly qualified GP £77k Comparing newly qualified top performers to MPs who you would hope are people with experience of life and work. Have a look at someone with a decade of work experience. "Generous expenses" for life away from home and paying for staff. Why does it suprise you that there is so much incompetence? Companies use salary to attract talent up to a point. Why shouldn't politics? You've misquoted again on GP salaries and it's hard to take you seriously when you've had the chance to correct your original statement. If MPs were forbidden from taking second jobs and gaining supplementary incomes which they do across all the parties - then I'd consider the argument that higher pay would attract a better calibre. BUT looking at the experience and background of many current MPs and Ministers - where's the proof that we aren't attracting the best of the best? That many of them are incompetent? Were they incompetent in their previous line of work? If the GP has just completed their training, then they are newly qualified as GPs, aren't they? You can do better than deliberately misinterpreting what I am writing to try to dismiss it. The ones who are incompetent do appear to have been incompetent in their previous line of work or didn't have a previous line of work other than politics. I regularly work with more competent thoughtful people than I see in Parliament. I am also sure that there are many who are, quietly, doing a very good job but the publicity and power hungry are the ones we hear the most from. Do you think that a lower salary would attract better talent? Parliament is not attracting the breadth of experience and knowledge outside of politics that it used to. Salary is only part of that. The constant press scrutiny and cynical view of the public also plays a part, as are other factors. I didn't misinterpret what you said. You're claiming again that MPs earn less than an MP. They don't. They earn £86k. The average GP earns £77k with 9 years of training. And this is derailing the topic so I am done. I agreed that GPs were paid less. I even wrote it down. The overall point was that MPs are not paid excessively with respect to other professionals. If you think that the 650 people who make the UKs laws should earn less then how do you think that will improve the quality of those doing the job?" No but I would also have a doctor working to save my life on more money then an MP how is trying to fuck me over and lie to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
