Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Jon]

I voted LibDem (as a tactical anti tory vote) Perhaps because it was tactical, not because I'm a supporter as such, and perhaps because it made absolutely no difference here (raving blue majority area) I'm utterly unbothered on a personal level that the LDs are as duplicitious as Labour and Tories - they haven't let me down, betrayed my vote or 'owt like that.

Would you be thinking the same if you were a student Pete, and had voted for them specifically on the Tuition fee promise/pledge?

I doubt it. But then again, as a voter I actually think the end result of the student fees thing is the right outcome. I genuinely don't believe that nearly so many people should be going to Uni, i don't believe that I or any other taxpayer should be paying for people to tart about doing media studies or many of the other largely useless courses. Fine, if they want to do that crap, pay for it themselves. For genuine talented people, doing genuine academic study, that will either benefit themselves or the nation, or both, then the old, old way was fine. Less students, proper courses - state pays. Gazillions of students, pointless courses, state (i.e. me and you) can't fund it all, so they should pay themselves.

Half agree Pete. But for me, the way to deal with excessive amounts of people of moderate intelligence going to Uni for half arsed "degrees" is not to make it financially difficult for them to do so (thus making Uni a privilege of the wealthy). The solution surely is to go back to the "old way", as you suggest. Make A Levels (or their equivalent) as hard as they used to be, and make it harder to get into Uni based upon academic merit/intelligence. Cut down on the amount of shite subjects available to study.

The new system will punish (financially) the genuinely talented/intelligent but less well-off (ie not from a wealthy background) students. That is not going back to the old way. That's a horrible new way. I'm actually fairly surprised at your stance on this.

[tonyh29]

The new system will punish (financially) the genuinely talented/intelligent but less well-off (ie not from a wealthy background) students.

People from poorer backgrounds are much less likely to go to university, but research carried out for the Sutton Trust showed there is almost no difference between the participation rates of the poorest students and better-off peers with the same A-level results. . . . The issue here, then, is not fees, but that poorer students are being let down by a broken school system before even thinking about aspiring to university.

[blandy]

Will it though Jon - it remains to be seen. I'm not daft but didn't go to Uni, and I'm not from a wealthy background at all. Dunno how harmed I've been by it. If there are jobs available, bright people will get on fine, IMO. And to be blunt, thickies are still thickies even if they've got a degree in tele-marketing. Bright people will see that if they go to Uni under the new system, work hard, then a loan (and a lot of state assistance, which they'll get) is entirely fair.

For other people, the choice will be go and get a degree, or fail to get one, in something useless and rack up some debt, or get a job.

For me it's more important there are jobs than irrelevant degrees from half baked Unis. Spend the money, on (as I've previously said) investing in infrastructure and environmental programmes, creating work for people to do to benefit the country and themselves, instead of studying fabric art at the Uni (former Poly) of Corby [if such a uni exists]. We'll be better off as taxpayers, people will have appropriate work and the Country will benefit from the end result - win all round.

[snowychap]

In an article at CIF, two students"]

The blame can only lie with those spreading the myths if, despite all these measures, poorer prospective students are dissuaded.

Fortunately, however, this may not happen: people from poorer backgrounds are much less likely to go to university, but research carried out for the Sutton Trust showed there is almost no difference between the participation rates of the poorest students and better-off peers with the same A-level results. If universities are meant to take in the most intelligent students, regardless of background, then this may well remain the case despite all the misinformation. The issue here, then, is not fees, but that poorer students are being let down by a broken school system before even thinking about aspiring to university.

[snowychap]

Despite their pompus rants against wikileaks maybe they are simply jealous that the Guardian is getting all the attention at the moment?

I suppose I hadn't really considered it might be something as obvious as that. It may well be.

Maybe because of the fact that their expenses scandal expose demonstrably changed the course of politics (for a while, at least) the temptation to influence/engineer because they can has gone to the editors heads?

Maybe they are trying to undermine the Lib Dem part of the Government to bring the down the coalition in an attempt to get a new election (a risky course given the current flighty nature of the markets)?

Maybe they are acting on behalf of the Tory right who are undoubtedly finding Cameron's love in with Clegg (and abandonment of the core vote) a hard act to swallow?

All quite possible.

Some/all/none of the above for all I know, but making open communication between an MP and their 'constituents' more difficult doesn't seem like a blow struck for democracy to me.

Very true.

[tonyh29]

I have the perfect solution for all of those people not happy with the government cuts

Source : that lovely news corporation that never harmed our country between 1997 -2009

might I suggest students adopt a slightly higher starting point though

[Richard]

Carried off shouting freedom!!

I'd have been carried off shouting "feck me that hurt"

[Awol]

EDIT: Posting under the influence

[blandy]

So Jeremy Hunt will now get the power to decide on Murdoch.... Jeremy Hunt who hates the BBC - the man who also said in 2010

Rupert Murdoch "has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person."

Cameron certainly likes to look after his paymasters and now it seems he can do quite happily.

Hunt shows how he could never be classed as impartial and is obviously a setup from Cameron

...like all good Conservatives Hunt is a cheerleader for Rupert Murdoch's contribution to the health of British television....

..would it matter if Rupert Murdoch owned two TV news channels in Britain? "The important thing is not whether a particular owner owns another TV channel but to make sure you have a variety of owners with a variety of TV channels so that no one owner has a dominant position both commercially and politically.

"Rather than worry about Rupert Murdoch owning another TV channel, what we should recognise is that he has probably done more to create variety and choice in British TV than any other single person because of his huge investment in setting up Sky TV which, at one point, was losing several million pounds a day.

"We would be the poorer and wouldn't be saying that British TV is the envy of the world if it hadn't been for him being prepared to take that commercial risk. We need to encourage that kind of investment."

Spoken like a true Thatcherite....

Unfortunately the level of influence Murdoch and his media empire have over all the politicians has been shown by things like this in the Guardian

(Gordon) Brown tried to get parliament to vote for 42-day pre-charge detention to please the Murdoch press, his colleagues believe. "Blair made it very clear to Gordon that he had to come across as tough; the News International people would worry if he was not. That is why he did 42 days," (Ed) Balls (said)

Be interesting to see what happens with Jeremy Malaprop and the decision. Waive through would be my guess.

[drat01]

You see Pete that is exactly the point that the Tory party faithful always seem to miss. The influence of Murdoch is bad, his right wing view points are very bad. Just because previous Gvmts pandered to him does not excuse this.

Now that is not to say he should have no voice, absolutely not at all, its just the massive influence that his empire will have is way beyond what is healthy. The fact that the Tory party has been seen to use a lot of "freebies" from them, private meetings with senior members of his empire, all of which look very suspect mean that the Tory party in particular cannot be seen as being impartial when it comes to decisions based on him and his empire.

[blandy]

He should have no voice, IMO. He's an Aussie turned U.S. citizen whose companies don't pay UK tax in the way they really ought to. He uses, as you say, his media companies to further his own agenda, not that of the british people.

[tonyh29]

You see Pete that is exactly the point that the Tory party faithful always seem to miss. The influence of Murdoch is bad.

No the bit we miss is where you posted this prior to 2009 :winkold:

[OutByEaster?]

His influence on this government is wrong - his influence on the last government is wrong - the problem is that it's very difficult to get into government if you're not prepared to be influenced by him.

[tonyh29]

He should have no voice, IMO. He's an Aussie turned U.S. citizen whose companies don't pay UK tax in the way they really ought to. He uses, as you say, his media companies to further his own agenda, not that of the british people.

In what way do you think the media should further the agenda of the British People ? Do you think the media really is that influential ?

The BBC have been lefties since forever why can't someone like Murdoch be the yang to their ying ?

Personally I'm more worried by the hello magazine types and the braindeads that follow trends that celebs come out with rather than something one of Murdochs new channels might broadcast

[drat01]

You see Pete that is exactly the point that the Tory party faithful always seem to miss. The influence of Murdoch is bad.

No the bit we miss is where you posted this prior to 2009 :winkold:

You obviously didn't look then :-)

Tony as a Tory supporter - and forgetting what previous Gvmts have or have not done, what is your thoughts on the influence that Murdoch and his empire has on the Gvmt in general and the Tory party in particular. OK with it or not?

[avfc89]

He should have no voice, IMO. He's an Aussie turned U.S. citizen whose companies don't pay UK tax in the way they really ought to. He uses, as you say, his media companies to further his own agenda, not that of the british people.

In what way do you think the media should further the agenda of the British People ? Do you think the media really is that influential ?

The BBC have been lefties since forever why can't someone like Murdoch be the yang to their ying ?

Personally I'm more worried by the hello magazine types and the braindeads that follow trends that celebs come out with rather than something one of Murdochs new channels might broadcast

The BBC isn't left.

[Gringo]

He should have no voice, IMO. He's an Aussie turned U.S. citizen whose companies don't pay UK tax in the way they really ought to. He uses, as you say, his media companies to further his own agenda, not that of the british people.

And he's evil

[tonyh29]

The BBC isn't left.

it so is , and always has been

[tonyh29]

what are your thoughts on the influence that Murdoch and his empire has on the Gvmt in general and the Tory party in particular. OK with it or not?

I probably already answered this in my post to blandy a few minutes ago

[peterms]

Question: do you endorse money creation?

Yes.

So you endorse inflation and concentration of physical wealth (the former is the consequence of money creation and the latter is a consequence of the former).

What, we should have a barter economy? Not really practical nowadays.

Or do you mean the standard monetarist line that inflation is caused by growth in the money supply? Long discredited.