It was funny the first time, Ellers, (well I did laugh out loud) but it's not very accurate. Most of the musicians at Glastonbury couldn't afford the ticket to get in. Corbyn (and Labour) aren't telling middle class kids that capitalism has failed the middle classes (which would be funny if that really was what they are saying), they're saying that austerity has failed the people who really need help the most - the poor and unlucky. That's not so funny if you're poor, and it's a disgrace for a wealthy country to be in this situation. But, hey, this is just an unaligned liberal talking. Who pays any attention to them, eh?
..and Labour are telling poor kids who don't go to university but get a job, that they'll be paying through their taxes for other kids, including from wealthy families, to go to university and on to high paying positions. I imagine one of the wealthy kids will be Diane Abbott's son whom she put through private schooling.
Maybe Charlotte Church could turn up to an Anti-capitalist demo in London speak to the crowd, then after get into a limo that takes her to a helicopter to fly her home.... oops she has already done that
I remember meeting Paul Weller back in the early 80s, during the time I was closest to 'politically active teenager'. He attended a UK Youth Parliament thing up in Sheffield, and basically did what Corbyn did at Glasto - told everyone that Capitalism was an abhorrence, that socialism is the only way, and that shaking the foundations of the rich and wealthy is a necessary part of the political world. Then he climbed back into his chauffeur-driven gold rolls royce and wafted himself away. The word 'hypocrite' sprung quite readily to mind...
I'm a big John Lennon fan, but Rod Liddle amused me in last weekend's Sunday Times. He said he always had a problem with Imagine's "imagine no possessions, it's easy if you try..." from a man who had a room specially constructed with state of art cooling system for Yoko's fur coat collection...
I used to laugh at Tony Blair So many hypocrites around mate. I remember listening to some anti-capitalist muppet who was dressed in designer gear complete with top of the range trainers. As for Corbyn, he would hug anyone for a vote.
Jezza topped the bill at Glasto lecturing about exploitation of young workers etc., but it seems his friend the owner of the site has sacked over 500 workers on zero hours contracts after two days of a promised 14 day 'gig' clearing up the site. It'll be interesting to see what Jezza has to say, if anything, about this... http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-days-into-glastonbury-clean-up-a7818571.html
What a ****er. Apologies to men with beards and a shaven upper lip, but I don't trust men with beards and a shaven upper lip. I hope a few Tories give Corbyn stick about it.
North Korea look like have upped the ante again... Don't like the way this has been heading over past few years...
Don't get all this opposition to the ex judge appointed to run the Grenfell Inquiry (or Enquiry, I'm never really sure). He's white, old, middle class, well educated and well qualified to examine all elements of this disaster, with the prime aim of identifying its causes and making sure it doesn't happen again. The objections seem to be based on the fact that he's white, old, middle class and well educated and therefore it's assumed, before he has even set the remit, that he will be unable to 'empathise' with victims and won't win their trust. Some groups have already, according to the new local Labour MP who is calling for him to be replaced, refused to 'cooperate' with him. What do they want, a social worker who will point the finger at who to hang after a couple of days? The sad fact is that if you want someone who is actually well qualified to do this technical, legal job in Britain today, there is a very high likelihood that you will appoint a white, old, middle class, well educated, man. Hopefully this will change in future, but it's where we are because of history. And anyway, I don't think victims of crime get to choose the judges and juries who try their cases.
Clear majority of 1. Assuming all her party are prepared to back her, prepared to deliver the Brexit she wants and prepared to back her funding of the promises to the DUP. The number of cabinet ministers distancing themselves from her indicates to me that she is the one with the battle on her hands. You have great faith that it will all turn out right. If there was another leadership election would you vote for her? Do you think she would stand and if so would she be elected?. The other mistake you make is that given the concessions which now have to be made is that she can hardly claim credit for delivering Brexit. It is Comrade Corbyn who will be delivering that on a plate. That's not because she has persuaded him behind closed doors.
I really would n't worry too much about hypocrisy. It's common enough on all sides. The fact is that we live in a world where money rules. Being a socialist doesn't mean that you have to starve yourself and mimick the poverty all around you. If you can make a difference in the policies you put forward and help the have nots to have a bit more at the expense of those who have more than they know what to do with you will be a successful and popular socialist politician even if you do like to drink the finest claret and drive nice fast cars. Anyway be very careful what you protest about. Politicians that pride themselves on their decency, rule of law and family values all too often have their dirty little secrets as well which inevitably get exposed eventually.
Actually, it's more than that. Sinn Fein never take their seats (that's seven) and the Speaker always abstains. That means 642 seats in practice, and with a total of 327 against 315, it's effectively a working majority of 12.
In addition to what Willie said correctly, bear in mind (i) there are Labour MP's that supported Brexit so they might support Government on certain aspects and (2) Corbyn is Eurosceptic too, so is unlikely to be pressing for a Norway option or similar. He wants out of single market and customs union. This helps May, because Labour can't be seen to object to eventual EU proposals just for the sake of it. I can't say May will survive two years, but it seems likely, given Tory MP's instinct for self-preservation. They calculate the further ahead a general election, the more likely it is that Corbyn's momentum will have stalled. After last week's Umunna vote, some might say it's started already. My candidate for Tory leadership is David Davis. But not at the moment. I'm convinced a satisfactory arrangement will be arrived at between the UK and the EU. The UK has a substantial trade surplus with the EU which is waking up to the fact that it has a £10 bn per annum hole in its budget. A no-deal just damages everyone. The EU has other big issues to deal with, presently massive immigration from the south. They'll want to put Brexit to bed on decent terms, rather than leave it as a festering wound.
Nice reversal of the rationale, there. If you didn't go to university, what benefit do you get for those taxes you pay so other people can go for free? Especially if their parents are wealthy. None, according to you, so why should they pay towards it? If we continue to charge for university fees, then poorer people, in general, will not go. Especially in these uncertain times, poorer children are not willing or able to take on a potential debt burden in the future. It continues the slide towards fewer opportunities for able yet poorer children. Why would anyone want that outcome? How else are we going to help children achieve their potential and contribute towards the success of the UK in the future? Everyone benefits from the UK having people who went to university. That's where doctors, dentists and nurses come from. That's where engineers who design and build things come from. That's where research scientists come from. I can live without someone getting free tuition to pursue a degree in "sports culture" or similar, but we should be encouraging everyone who is good enough to become an engineer to want to go to university no matter how poor they or their family is. Now, if that's via means-testing to whittle out who can afford to pay, then fine by me - but I'd like to see every potential doctor get the chance to become one. And those free places need to be paid for through taxes.
The graduate loan system is a bit of a farce. My missus is self-employed and therefore pays her student loan based on her 'official' salary I.e. next to nothing while I'm seeing a few hundred a month go to the student loan people at relatively ludicrous interest rates compared to my mortgage. A tax would be fairer and would make education free at the point of use.
Means testing may be the answer. They did that for student grants in the past. I don't have a problem with loans but more should be done to reduce the size of debt. A sliding scale of government subsidising funding perhaps, but it would have to be for certain recognised degree courses of quality. That's a difficult one, subjective, but as I think we're agreed, there's no reason why a kid from a poor background who goes straight into an apprenticeship should pay through his taxes for someone's three year jolly reading Windsurfing or Origami. 60% of kids don't go to university.
Well, you're mixing a couple of things together - but I do think some subjects make themselves difficult for anyone to justify the idea of paying for them through the public purse. Others, though, almost seem vital to me in this day and age. Equally, I doubt very much anyone on an apprenticeship will be paying enough tax to worry too much about where it goes. Wait until they're older, earning more and start aspirationally identifying with the Conservatives (that's a joke, fellas, OK?) A 40% university attendance rate (much higher than when I was leaving school) reflects the downgrading of what going to university seems to mean these days. It wouldn't hurt to come clean and get some establishments to revert back to their polytechnic roots - because they still look and act like polys, whatever their status is officially.
There must be more working class and disadvantaged kids going to Uni now simply because 40% of 18 year olds go now compared to the 5% who when I went, when it was free with a means tested maintenance grant - the perfect scenario for the less well off. I think we had ample office jobs and apprenticeships for 16 and 18 year olds to go into and pretty high employment until the early 80s. I suspect if we had this situation again the numbers going to Uni would drop. The government keeps telling us we have great unemployment stats and they are investing in apprenticeships, so perhaps things are changing, but all I hear about from my kids is the crappy quality of the jobs available to them, and saw something yesterday saying that the majority of new graduates are bored at work because they don't have graduate level jobs. Some degrees, most obviously the medical professions, should not have tuition fees, but there should also be a commitment from those who take up these courses and drop out or choose not to practice medicine at all or leave the country to do it, to pay something back. All other degrees I think the taxpayer could stump up a little more for, but a reduced tuition fee should remain (along with the already existing means tested living grants) because studying at uni is an (expensive) privilege, not a right. I'd love to be back in the times when my high quality and free education to 21 was available to everyone, but the fact is that very few benefitted from it in those days. However, the interest charged on student loans is a disgrace, even if the repayment schedule linked to income is generous. 4%+ now, possibly going up to 6% soon. Usurious. You can get a 50k loan from Tesco for 3%. Totally agree with the Polytechnic comment.
