snap general election?

rick_chasey

So, an example from today.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... t-concerns

Britain’s largest university has set out plans to axe 171 jobs, mostly academic positions in the faculties of arts, languages, biology, medicine and business.

The University of Manchester blamed new government legislation and the prospect of Brexit as major factors threatening its future income and said it needed to “invest in our strategic priorities”.

That is in spite of this:

The university recorded a £59.7m surplus for the year in 2015-16, after a £19.6m deficit the year before, according to data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency. The university’s financial statement revealed it had reserves totalling almost £1.5bn, of which £430m was cash.

Lots of money, but none where needed.

veronese68

Rick Chasey wrote:

Speaking of A levels, what would be brilliant, would be a system whereby you get offered a place based on your actual results, rather than your estimated.

You still have to get the results to get in. The offer is made before the exams have been sat so they can't really mark them that fast. If you don't get the results asked for you have to go through clearing. Some places are offered unconditionally based on the application but that is relatively unusual.

rick_chasey

Veronese68 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Speaking of A levels, what would be brilliant, would be a system whereby you get offered a place based on your actual results, rather than your estimated.

You still have to get the results to get in. The offer is made before the exams have been sat so they can't really mark them that fast. If you don't get the results asked for you have to go through clearing. Some places are offered unconditionally based on the application but that is relatively unusual.

Alright, so take two examples, me and my best man.

Me: predicted A/B, A/B A.

Got: AAA.

the two AAA universities did not even consider me for interview.

My friend: predicted: AAA. Needed that to get in to AAA university.

Got BBA.

They let him in anyway.


I have family members who work in the admissions process for Unis.

It's never fair. They admit that themselves.

rick_chasey

And on top of that, you have differences amongst schools for the criteria they use for predicted grades.

My wife was asked "what results do you need to get into your desired university?"

Mine was worked out by an algorithm, and didn't take into account things like moving house into a building site a week before exams and a relative dying beforehand.

bendertherobot

Make Britain great again, Brexit, like the good old days.

But not that type of good old days.

veronese68

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alright, so take two examples, me and my best man.
...
I have family members who work in the admissions process for Unis.

It's never fair. They admit that themselves.

Aah, we haven't got that far yet so I guess it was hypothetical on my part. Son is about to sit his A levels. He got offers from all the uni's he applied to from A*AA to an unconditional. Unfortunately he can't defer the unconditional so needs to get AAA. Hopefully he will get in or his year off may well be off.

bendertherobot

Manifesto now agreed. One wonders whether the leak was to gauge responses and annoy the Daily Mail.

Take out a little bit of privatisation, beef up defence, and suddenly a 70's manifesto could look fairly sensible, costing questions aside.

TheBigBean

bendertherobot wrote:

Manifesto now agreed. One wonders whether the leak was to gauge responses and annoy the Daily Mail.

Take out a little bit of privatisation, beef up defence, and suddenly a 70's manifesto could look fairly sensible, costing questions aside.

It wasn't really a damaging leak which always makes the leak suspicious.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alright, so take two examples, me and my best man.

Me: predicted A/B, A/B A.

Got: AAA.

the two AAA universities did not even consider me for interview.

My friend: predicted: AAA. Needed that to get in to AAA university.

Got BBA.

They let him in anyway.


I have family members who work in the admissions process for Unis.

It's never fair. They admit that themselves.

In my day, some universities just managed their quality by setting a high entry standard to all i.e. everyone who asked received a AAA offer. They didn't interview anyone.

Other universities did interview and changed the offer accordingly. No idea what I was predicted to get.

Pross

I'm generally not a fan of nationalisation but with the rails it makes complete sense to me as long as the Government maintain all their existing levels of funding and ring fence the fare income. In theory it should give more money to invest and / or cheaper fares plus make it easier to link up services. There would also be a greater incentive to make long term investment in rolling stock that a relatively short franchise doesn't encourage.

mr_goo

Re: Nationalusing / Labour / Any Government / Gas & Electric

My thought on how to combat the big energy companies, who are essentially resellers. Why doesn't the government set up their own company which could sell gaz & leccy at prices that would balance the books or make a relatively small profit by percentage. This would surely exert leverage onto the publicly listed big 6.
Or is this just a sunni idea?

Jez mon

Mr Goo wrote:

Re: Nationalusing / Labour / Any Government / Gas & Electric

My thought on how to combat the big energy companies, who are essentially resellers. Why doesn't the government set up their own company which could sell gaz & leccy at prices that would balance the books or make a relatively small profit by percentage. This would surely exert leverage onto the publicly listed big 6.
Or is this just a sunni idea?

As a private company why would you ever take the risk of competing against the govt in a situation like that?

reallyarunner

Mr Goo wrote:

Re: Nationalusing / Labour / Any Government / Gas & Electric

My thought on how to combat the big energy companies, who are essentially resellers. Why doesn't the government set up their own company which could sell gaz & leccy at prices that would balance the books or make a relatively small profit by percentage. This would surely exert leverage onto the publicly listed big 6.
Or is this just a sunni idea?

the trouble is energy isnt such the rip off that the media and government would have you believe. Check out link below re make up of bill:

http://www.energy-uk.org.uk/customers/a ... -bill.html

Average supplier profit is 4%, compare that with say cost of renewable obligations.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

Re: Nationalusing / Labour / Any Government / Gas & Electric

My thought on how to combat the big energy companies, who are essentially resellers. Why doesn't the government set up their own company which could sell gaz & leccy at prices that would balance the books or make a relatively small profit by percentage. This would surely exert leverage onto the publicly listed big 6.
Or is this just a sunni idea?

Most aren't just resellers.

for this to work the Govt would have to own the electricity generators, gas and oil suppliers.

bendertherobot

Of course, most of the suppliers are state owned. Just not ours.....

mr_goo

bendertherobot wrote:

Of course, most of the suppliers are state owned. Just not ours.....

Good point. Forgot all about that. It was one argument put against the Navitus Bay wind farm. A joint venture between EDF and Eneco. It would have got £1.5bn in subsidies over 20 years. Simply put, the British taxpayers giving money to the French and Dutch governments.

bendertherobot

Ditto rail.

pblakeney

Ditto NHS.
One day in the not too distant future.

bendertherobot

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/j ... -railways/

bendertherobot

@britainelects
On renationalising the energy industry:
Support: 49%
Oppose: 24%
On renationalising Britain's railways:
Support: 52%
Oppose: 22%
On banning zero hours employment contracts:
Support: 71%
Oppose: 16%
On keeping the ban on fox hunting:
Support: 78%
Oppose: 12%
On which party 'seems to have more realistic and well thought through policies':
Conservatives: 51%
Labour: 31%
(via @ComRes / 11 May)

rick_chasey

It's a matter of priority innit.



He's banging on about sh!t no-one really cares about.

bompington

bendertherobot wrote:

@britainelects
On renationalising the energy industry:
Support: 49%
Oppose: 24%
On renationalising Britain's railways:
Support: 52%
Oppose: 22%
On banning zero hours employment contracts:
Support: 71%
Oppose: 16%
On keeping the ban on fox hunting:
Support: 78%
Oppose: 12%
On which party 'seems to have more realistic and well thought through policies':
Conservatives: 51%
Labour: 31%
(via @ComRes / 11 May)

The point is surely that these polls are essentially asking the question "do you want free lunch for everyone or are you a heartless bastard?"
When it comes to voting people are a bit more likely to weigh up the consequences.

rick_chasey

No-one is getting exercised about nationalising the train service.

It's like if they asked me which do I prefer, burritos or curries for lunch?

Say everyone answers burritos, it doesn't mean "BRITAIN DEMANDS BURRITOS BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL LUNCHES".

Pointless.

bendertherobot

It's not pointless. It demonstrates that there is support for certain policies. That there is no match with the overall is potentially cognitive dissonance but can be explained in any number of ways. That it may have less value than it seems to suggest is true, but it's not pointless.

Now, the Energy Cap, that's pointless......

rick_chasey

Fine - misleading then.

Voter priorities are a much more effective indicator for what will play well than the binary do you agree with x manifesto policy.

When we're canvassing, we're informed on how to pitch the story on the front door by what gets people revved up - what's #1 and #2 priority.

If I knock on someone's door thinking ' wow, 71% of people want zero hours gotten rid of' and I start chatting to them about it, they're gonna think 'WTF is this guy on - I'm worried about getting a sh!te deal from Brexit, so I'm sure as sh!t not gonna vote for someone who I think will do worse than May" - for example.

Jez mon

Whereas I think we're going to get shafted by Brexit either way, so I might as well vote for getting rid of student fees and possibly cheaper trains!

bendertherobot

Jez mon wrote:

Whereas I think we're going to get shafted by Brexit either way, so I might as well vote for getting rid of student fees and possibly cheaper trains!

It's consistent with taking back control.

bendertherobot

Rick Chasey wrote:

Fine - misleading then.

Voter priorities are a much more effective indicator for what will play well than the binary do you agree with x manifesto policy.

When we're canvassing, we're informed on how to pitch the story on the front door by what gets people revved up - what's #1 and #2 priority.

If I knock on someone's door thinking ' wow, 71% of people want zero hours gotten rid of' and I start chatting to them about it, they're gonna think 'WTF is this guy on - I'm worried about getting a sh!te deal from Brexit, so I'm sure as sh!t not gonna vote for someone who I think will do worse than May" - for example.

It's not misleading either. It's from a poll which has the data in it. People (including me) are taking it and pasting it. It's like all polls.

In terms of doorstepping, what's the point? It's clear that you're not going to get anyone to change their mind on whether May will be better or worse on Brexit. But actual policy? For this country? That's worth talking about, isn't it? We do vote for MP's after all. Doesn't seem to be a lot of that around at the moment.

rick_chasey

Asking the opinion of individual meals on a menu isn't the same as asking for people what they fancy for dinner.

One is more relevant than the other.

If everyone wants, for example, all tax to be at 20%, and no party is suggesting it, then it's not going to be representative.

You need to hear what people prioritise and need. Let the punters say what's exercising them. Now THAT is a policy discussion.

bendertherobot

Oh, it's complicated. But these are a party's policies (we think). And if a manifesto consists of everything you agree with but you don't like that man with a beard preferring, instead, the manifesto which you only agree with some of, we're in some trouble. Whether that's because we're getting the wrong policies or because that man is a problem, it's still some sort of problem.

But I do think we're getting away from a major issue here. What about that other man or woman who represents the people of the constituency? What do we think of them? What do they say? Or do we just go full on Presidential?

Radical thought, I wonder if PM's should be neutralised following dissolution and parties made to choose one once the MP's are elected.