I somehow stopped doing Maths at the age of 8. I took not a jot of interest and I don`t think anybody was too fussed either. When I was around 29 I started to upgrade my Maths skills by getting hold of the necessary books, working my way through the books, going to night school for some guidance and taking my level of Maths from that of an eight year old to that of an O Level student in the space of 2 years, eventually getting a B in the exam.
I didn't mean it that way. There you go, put out of your misery. Hmm, they may have been ill chosen words.
I kind of agree on this however the problem as ever is those with the means to do so engineer the model. So rather than the uptopian version of globalisation that you refer to and I would probably agree with we have just another model that has been engineered by the few to benefit the few. Difference is this time a lot of society has bought into that utopian dream without accepting that it is being manipulated to cause the very problems they suggest they are fighting. I am with you on renewable energy and almost all green issues. I am quite sceptical about the reasons that those at the top push it though because it is another good cause, one that I agree with, that is being utilised to profiteer from. As for the world of communication that is another can of worms in an age where politicians are paying lip service to autism spectrums and ADHD where communication "can be" a very tough barrier. Not for all of course but many ASD people just cannot deal with communication spoken or face to face yet are quite comfortable behind type like me where I can communicate without a problem. Get me in a job interview and I am Mr Mute, A job where I have to communicate with others on any level is tough. That's a problem. II agree about most of your post however when we live in a world where half of society is feeling the good effects of globalisation and then defending the utopian version that is being sold to us all without ever conceding that the few are manipulating the model as always then we can't change it. We can't change the EU that refuse to accept any change and we can;t change government policies, however we can change governments and we can vote and like I said at the start of this thread many moons ago, a lot of the people who voted leave, Trump or Le Pen just saw no other option in a world of communication that isn't listening to anyone that disagrees. The morons who voted purely on racism etc are not that many in proportion and the others just thought "we have no other choice because no-one listens." On the coal thing. Maybe the US is more gullible but most people here in the UK understand that the engineering jobs aren't coming back and that the old jobs are gone however........they have been forgotten. You've lost your jobs and you locality is now derelict. What's the answer? Re-generation (shudders) which to a normal person means that everything is going to get more expensive. It will look prettier but you will be moved out and you won;t be able to afford to live there. Lots of office spaces for jobs that the government refuses to re-train you for and that means more people drafted in or commuting. Apart from the green issue there of everybody travelling all the time it means that you are pushed to the peripherie while others enjoy that regeneration and at the end of it you are told that you benefitted because the locality is benefiting!! If that utopian version of globalisation we are always being sold was actually working in the way it was being sold as then hurrah, however it isn't and those in charge know how it is being manipulated and are quite happy for it to continue so more and more people will vote against it. It would help if soundbites and media agendas were a thing of the past and instead of this constant focus on the young and all these courses available for 18-24s they actually remember that since the seventies there have been more and more people (vastly increasing in the nineties and the computer/financial age) that have not been retrained, that are not under 24 and are quite sick of being ignored all the time.
I think the only thing I agree with you there is that you need parents who support you and believe you can be as good as anyone else. It's near impossible if your parents tell you you can't. I've had brilliant academic parts of my life and some very poor ones. Been motivated and unmotivated but I wouldn't blame anyone else or a syndrome. My kids have done well, they've learned from my mistakes! for that I am very happy!
But how were they going to pay for tripling the Uni intake? Put taxes up? Blair tripled the intake and the student loan scheme was one way of trying to fund some of that increase. By the time the coalition came in it was clear that not much money was coming back but what to do? Go back to Uni for the few or the dream of everybody being graduates for jobs that aren't there? They chose the latter. The whole problem with Blair's idea was that the jobs for these extra graduates weren't created. There never was going to be a situation where there would be so many higher jobs to cope with the extra graduates. How do you pay for these utopian ideas? This is one of the main reasons people vote Tory. They are trusted more to actually cost up what they are going to do while the left has lots of great ides without ever really being able to explain how they are going to pay for them. It's no good for them to keep saying "we'll tax the rich to pay for it" when we know from experience that the rich will find a way not to be taxed. So then who pays for it? We do from taxes and borrowing. "We" would rather buy a TV and a smartphone rather than have more debt spent on things that we actually do need like health and education and thus the population itself decides they would rather have "stuff" and money in pocket than pay for "services" and the rich will never be taxed more while they are able to move money so easily and take earnings in so many other ways like deferring them until they can pay less or these charity scams.
You know what I mean. Sports academies are selective, same as grammar schools. Should it be banned because it not fair on those that aren't good enough or because rich parents can afford more personal coaching? Should we be jealous that we don't have a chance of doing some sports entirely (rowing) unless we go to private school or (equestrian) if we have rich parents? It is the same thing where lots of dreams are broken when you aren't good enough to get into football academy. However it is real life. Life is not X factor where a sob story might get you through.
We do agree. My main aim is to try and guide my kids through and not let the same happen to them. To understand them more if they have problems rather than just not believe it like my parents.
Blimey Imp, you've got the bit between your teeth tonight! (I shouldn't be surprised). I'm not sure my view of globalisation is Utopian. The goal of sustainability is not Utopian, it is the natural order to want to survive unless you are either brainwashed or suicidal .. or both. I agree with you that those in power know how to manipulate the goal of sustainability, that is why we need to hold them to account. I fail to see how Brexit will promote that goal and there's the rub. Do you want the planet to survive or just you and yours? You can argue that all politics involves manipulation and that all politicians are manipulators. It is however a very negative take. It is not Utopian to promote hope or to suggest the general good/well being is the only sustainable way forward. It would be Utopian to suggest this will be an easy path. The alternative is too depressing to articulate, which is why our manipulating politicians don't.
It gets written off if you haven't paid after either 25 years (older loans) or 30 years (more recent loans). The lower limit for repayments is now £21,000 and you pay 9% of anything over that. Your annual payments will be £90 for every £1000 you earn over £21,000. Hardly breaking the bank. It's often the case that it isn't worth overpaying it - overpayments can effectively be money down the toilet because many will never pay off the full loan. I've had a student loan and I've never understood why people are concerned by them or their size. The minimum repayments are relatively small, if you don't earn enough you pay nothing, they don't show up on credit reports or affect your credit rating (although the impact on your take-home pay will obviously affect your ability to take out other loans) and most importantly the debt gets written off if it's not paid after a certain amount of time, if you're declared permanently unfit for work or if you die. My sister has a masters degree and (presumably, I've never asked) a large "debt". She's now in her early 30s, has had 2 kids and works part-time in a local library. I suspect she'll never repay the full loan. The larger your student loan the better as far as I'm concerned - if you do pay it off you will have made a good career for yourself and if you don't you've effectively been given a grant. I'll use the example given earlier in this thread of someone who "owes" £70,000. To pay that off within 30 years the person who "owes" the money would need to repay an average of £2333.33 a year. That equates to an approximate average annual salary of £47,000. Those figures also assume no interest and that the repayment threshold will remain the same (it will almost certainly go higher) so the actual average salary needed to repay the whole loan will be higher. If the person with the loan doesn't earn that much they simply won't pay back the full loan and the debt will be written off. On grammars, we already have a selective system. It's just that the majority of selection is by wealth or religion (or more commonly your ability to pretend you're religious). The top performing comprehensive schools take fewer disadvantaged pupils. Why? Because house prices in the area around a good school are usually inflated - a house in the catchment area of one of the top 500 schools in the country typically costs about 20% (almost £50,000 on average) more than the average house in that local authority.
No one system is perfect but what is needed is massive improvement in investment in education, along with highly skilled teachers with the widest provision possible, beyond the narrow scope of the traditional subjects. We need our children to be creative in whatever medium they choose, skilled in all manner of things, with their hands, fingers, healthy and flexible. Beyond the Brexit fiasco, as it will surely hit the buffers in a matter of months as nothing gets done, educational issues need addressing with the provision of retraining people in different skills throughout our working life and beyond. If the Government dumped the idea of renewing Trident, there would be lot more money in the pot.
I don;t mean Utopian as in unachievable. I mean that globalisation "could" work the way you say. Green policy "should" work the way you say. The problem is that those that like to earn and keep their wealths jump on the project and hide behind the title then manipulate the model to suit them like the old models did. The difference this time is that a large part of society defends the title and is not prepared to accept that it is being manipulated against the way they think it is supposed to be. Yes it ties in with me "not binning the policy" because it is the administration that is the problem however when the whole western world and half of society is unprepared to accept the administration is wrong (world market dominations, intrastates like EU IMF, all westerm mainstream parties and their placemen like Macron) are unprepared to tackle the administration how can you change things other than vote against the policy. The EU vote was a straight globalisation or not vote for many. Doesn't matter than the dream of globalisation could because all of the people who are "in charge" refuse to change it because they half of society on their side. So out goes the EU. With UK policy people can see that getting people who are able to work to go to work is a good idea. At the same time they can see that it isn;t being administrated properly and that can much easier be sorted (doesn;t mean it will) by challenging government to sort out the way it is administered. How can anyone stand up to globalisation or the EU and get them to change? They won't and they refuse to blaming the people instead or insisting it is all down to demagogues filling their minds with false accusations. So the only way is to vote against because they won't listen. I think people have much more hope that a UK government will listen and even so what choice do they have when the 2 main parties (and the 3rd and 4th) are all fully sold up on the globalisation ideal? Do you not believe that globalisation is being abused as a defence for the top people? Do you not think it is just to easy a defence to hide behind to not pay their way for the fruits they harvest from each country and their peoples?
Yes, Macron has a very difficult job in front of him. He was always going to win this election, Le Pen was only ever hoping to get 40% of the vote and target 2022. If Macron fails (and I suspect he will) then the next election may be different. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next US election if (when) Trump fails.
You already know the answer there. I want the model to work properly as it is promoted and not abused by all that reap the rewards. I don't care what the title is. But like I say if it is being abused then someone should be challenging that abuse and not refusing to listen or accept anything is wrong. Hope is fine. We all hope. Hope is a powerful word. Hope that one day they might change? Or hope that you will survive and not get buried. Hope your children do well or hope that they don't do too badly? Should we hope for a win or hope not to lose?
I'm so looking forward to global fascism. Kill all these pesky minority groups and liberals and away we go!
Do you just put these impulsive statements to get them out of your system or are you trying to imply yet again that I am against minorities and liberal or a supporter of fascism? And would fascism work globally? I thought you were all telling us that the nationalists were all fascists? How would nationalists work globally?
Define "fascism". The word is used so widely now that it has barely any meaning. UKIP get called fascist for goodness sake.
Who the **** said that was aimed at you? You're not the only person with an opinion on this board, even though 98% of the words written on this thread seem to be from you. I was actually responding to the message from Geert Wilders of the Dutch "Freedom" (i.e. Fascist) Party to Marine Le Pen that they would both win next time. My apologies if my "impulsive" statement wasn't sufficiently well-backed with data for you to treat seriously. I must, however, have touched some sort of nerve with you for you to respond in that way. You do, however, make a very good point. In the event that the Nazis had won the Second World War in Europe, with Japan victorious in the East, how long would it have been before all the various fascist governments: Italy, Norway, France, Spain, etc., etc., began to start trying to gain ascendancy over each other, leading inevitably to World War III.
On the former, I apologise. Just seemed like it was directed towards me, so if not then I'm sorry for taking it that way. In terms of the latter if those governments were still their own nation state fascist governments and one gained ascendency over another then that isn;t globalism is it? It is colonisation or empire building. Could you not equate an ascendency over other nation states with Germany ruling the roost in regards the EU and what is decided in the EU? Do we not already have a dominant (non fascist) nation state in the EU that virtually has the final say on what happens? Globalism is sold as everyone working together globally. Your scenario is separate nation states that are fascist and of course they will have their own beliefs and ideas that counter each other (as non fascist states do.) If one gains the upper hand over the others it becomes an Empire building exercise. In a similar way that the US was (and probably still is) seen as the "leader of the free world" and all nations in the Western world tend to pander to the US. Not in terms of being suppressed by the US or dictation of people but because of money. The obsession with money means that every Western Country thinks of the US first because they want to sell to the US. All of our TV programmes these days are made with the US in mind because we want to sell our programmes to the US. It may not be a third reich or British empire building exercise of the past however money is in charge these days and everything is always boiled down to a profit and loss. There is nothing in the news these days that is not assessed by money. People's experiences, thoughts, opinions or emotions do not even get considered anymore because we (as nation states) are slaves to the almighty $. The only time that people's real world experiences are taken into account is to pre-fix a debate where money will be the conclusion. There are many people that have happy lives yet are living week to week. Of course there are equally rich people tat are miserable however look at a news report and these real world examples do not matter. The accountant will provide the GDP, growth and financials for the correspondent to gloomily tell us all that we are suffering or not. Never mind your experience. The profit and loss says that you are suffering. Who cares what we think when it as simple as adding up numbers. So in summary. global fascism would require an empire builder and as far as nation states being in control of others you can argue that Germany are already in charge of the EU (mainly due to money) or that the US controls the world through money. There is already a hierarchy of nations that have the "ascendency" over others, not through war but through money and influence.
Anyone know how to cancel an E Bay bid? I bid £6 on a cowboy outfit.....and now I am 7 minutes away from owning the Labour Party.
