May has gone - ding dong the utter, utter, total failure of a prime minister is gone

1246723

Posts

  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 15,955
    rjsterry wrote:
    john80 wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    john80 wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    whoever wins is unlikely to survive long and it will hopefully kill their career permanently.

    A last hoorah for a Henry?

    #fascistTories

    Saying Tories are facists is like saying Labour supporters are Marxist. Some are, not all.

    nope. they all are. not one iota of care for the greater good in any of their bodies

    #fascists

    I have voted Tory since those Labour twats chose to introduce tuition fees and saddle intelligent engineers such as myself with debt. I was down the local sailing club teaching kids how to sail at the weekend. Didn't even get paid. I have just given you one example of a historically Tory voter doing something for the greater good of society and a whole party doing something that was definitely bad for society. But then this is the internet where the use of the word "all" is routinely used incorrectly.

    So the consequence of your anger regarding the act of increasing the debt on a broadly/commonly privileged sector of society is to shift from left wing to right wing?

    This summarises why politics is so difficult now. It's Turkeys voting for Christmas. Once you identify yourself as someone who will vote against your own best interests (feel free to analogise to Brexit) you are sending a message to those in power that there is absolutely no point in them considering your needs; even if they do give you what you want you'll still vote against them. There should be a special category in the Darwin awards for this.

    Yeah I am sure that first generation graduate from a modest background considers the act of getting educated and working hard makes him from a privileged sector of society. Universal debt regardless of background really assisted those not from families where the debt could just be paid off by the parents and was irrelevant.

    We have had 50 years of removing industry from the economy as if increasing productivity and providing well paid jobs was somehow a bad idea. It was a much better idea to buy in all these services for some bizarre reasoning.

    If as an engineering graduate you can make a decent living then that does put you at an advantage. If for whatever reason that degree doesn't lead to a higher income then you don't have to repay the debt. Point is, free university places were a massive give away to a majority of students, who were from that privileged sector of society where it was just expected.

    Exactly. Ultimately, it was the decision to massively increase the number of University students that made loans essential (though I suspect they would have replaced the grant system anyway). There's a good chance that your first generation graduate from a modest background wouldn't have had the chance to get a degree at all thirty years ago. Whether the current situation is a genuine improvement or not on how things used to be depends on how many graduates are getting graduate level jobs but a loan that you only pay off if you get a graduate level wage doesn't seem that bad a solution. Even Martin Lewis seems to think that!

    But yes, I'd say anyone with an engineering degree, no matter how indebted as a result of it, is privileged. Go to a shopping centre in a censored part of town and see how many engineering graduates you'll find hanging around outside McDonalds. They are privileged whether they think so or not.

    Mind you, I am still glad I didn't have to incur those debts during my degree. I might have had to choose a more lucrative subject (such as engineering!).
    Faster than a tent.......
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 44,402 Lives Here
    Grads complaining their degree has been devalued by too many others doing degrees is a bit like people in a traffic jam complaining too many people drive their car.
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 6,887
    robert88 wrote:
    One of the reasons Britain lost its ascendancy in the late years of the 19th century and ever after was the way in which its rivals educated and trained their populations. Conservative Britain was was wary of allowing the lower orders an education lest it led to discontent. They certainly had a point as in Germany there had been a revolt in 1848 which had to be crushed. Many educated Germans emigrated, some to the UK where they were very successful, starting businesses that thrived and brought prosperity. A great number of those and other businesses lost their investment in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They were absorbed by foreign buyers or asset stripped. The rise of banking and retail followed.

    Today the UK is woefully short of significantly large companies that are at the leading edge of modern science and technology. We are a nation of relatively poorly educated consumers and borrowers, very ill-equipped to make our way in a post-Brexit role.
    Bunch of cliches, all of which are either overstated, distorted or simply untrue.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 7,620
    john80 wrote:
    I have voted Tory since those Labour twats chose to introduce tuition fees and saddle intelligent engineers such as myself with debt.

    That's a joke, right?
    and then the next thing you know
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,718
    john80 wrote:
    So we have some advocates of the increase in university places as some sort of benefit to the less well off. Some saying it's a give away to the more well off. The point that you don't have to pay it back if you don't earn as much.

    No, I said that the old system of free places for all disproportionately benefitted the well off, who were the principal users of the system and could have afforded to contribute. Maintenance grants are a separate issue again.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,436
    rjsterry wrote:

    No, I said that the old system of free places for all disproportionately benefitted the well off, who were the principal users of the system and could have afforded to contribute.

    Most 18 year olds are not that wealthy. If parents of some 18 year olds wish to give money to their children then make it taxable income. Then treat all 18 year olds the same, and offer them the privilege of some form of training whether that be a university place or an apprenticeship, and only do this when they have met entry standards (e.g. Two Es at A-Level is not enough for the state to fund a degree)
  • mamil314mamil314 Posts: 1,103
    It could be said that second Uni fee tripling resulted in Brexit. Nick Clegg, of the big EU supporters LibDems, was campaigning through unis before election and hinting at abolishing the 3k payment. Then they flipped a neat 180 degrees after joining Tories to get majority over Labour. That majority, however was small and Cameron had to rely on eurosceptics and gave them the referendum. Of course disgruntled folks feel betrayed to this day and didn't turn up to vote. And since most of them won't touch Corbyn's setup with a pole, it's a bit grim out there.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,718
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:

    No, I said that the old system of free places for all disproportionately benefitted the well off, who were the principal users of the system and could have afforded to contribute.

    Most 18 year olds are not that wealthy. If parents of some 18 year olds wish to give money to their children then make it taxable income. Then treat all 18 year olds the same, and offer them the privilege of some form of training whether that be a university place or an apprenticeship, and only do this when they have met entry standards (e.g. Two Es at A-Level is not enough for the state to fund a degree)

    Yes, clearly we are talking about parents' wealth. My point was that the introduction of fees and raising of those fees hasn't discouraged students from less wealthy backgrounds; it would appear to be the opposite.

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... s-students

    Interesting idea on taxing income received from parents, but given the general outrage at inheritance tax, I can't see that coming to pass.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 37,513
    bompington wrote:
    robert88 wrote:
    One of the reasons Britain lost its ascendancy in the late years of the 19th century and ever after was the way in which its rivals educated and trained their populations. Conservative Britain was was wary of allowing the lower orders an education lest it led to discontent. They certainly had a point as in Germany there had been a revolt in 1848 which had to be crushed. Many educated Germans emigrated, some to the UK where they were very successful, starting businesses that thrived and brought prosperity. A great number of those and other businesses lost their investment in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They were absorbed by foreign buyers or asset stripped. The rise of banking and retail followed.

    Today the UK is woefully short of significantly large companies that are at the leading edge of modern science and technology. We are a nation of relatively poorly educated consumers and borrowers, very ill-equipped to make our way in a post-Brexit role.
    Bunch of cliches, all of which are either overstated, distorted or simply untrue.
    +1

    Also I'd like to see a some specific examples from Robert of the sort of large companies in those sectors that he thinks we are 'short of'.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,436
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:

    No, I said that the old system of free places for all disproportionately benefitted the well off, who were the principal users of the system and could have afforded to contribute.

    Most 18 year olds are not that wealthy. If parents of some 18 year olds wish to give money to their children then make it taxable income. Then treat all 18 year olds the same, and offer them the privilege of some form of training whether that be a university place or an apprenticeship, and only do this when they have met entry standards (e.g. Two Es at A-Level is not enough for the state to fund a degree)

    Yes, clearly we are talking about parents' wealth. My point was that the introduction of fees and raising of those fees hasn't discouraged students from less wealthy backgrounds; it would appear to be the opposite.

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... s-students

    Interesting idea on taxing income received from parents, but given the general outrage at inheritance tax, I can't see that coming to pass.

    Yes, there would be outrage. I have never understood why a child that works for their parents gets to pay tax, but one that is bone idle and simply receives the money, doesn't pay tax.
  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 7,091
    john80 wrote:
    Yeah I am sure that first generation graduate from a modest background considers the act of getting educated and working hard makes him from a privileged sector of society.

    I'm a first generation graduate from a modest background who got an education and worked hard.

    I'm definitely from a privileged sector of society. Absolutely no doubt about it.

    I wouldn't vote for the Tories though. Because it's not all about me.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,571
    and because they are fascists and Ben is not.

    #fascists
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 7,091
    and because they are fascists and Ben is not.

    #fascists

    #notafascist
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 37,513
    Ben6899 wrote:
    I wouldn't vote for the Tories though. Because it's not all about me.
    I love the assumption that anyone voting Tory is doing so for selfish reasons but anyone voting Labour or Lib Dem are doing it for altruistic or compassionate reasons :)

    #leftiebollox
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Ben6899Ben6899 Posts: 7,091
    I wish it was this easy when I go *actual* fishing.
    Ben

    Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
    Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  • arthur_scrimshawarthur_scrimshaw Posts: 2,602
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Ben6899 wrote:
    I wouldn't vote for the Tories though. Because it's not all about me.
    I love the assumption that anyone voting Tory is doing so for selfish reasons but anyone voting Labour or Lib Dem are doing it for altruistic or compassionate reasons :)

    #leftiebollox

    Generalisations are unhelpful but who would you vote for? Tory, because you see it as the least worst option even after the last 3 years? Is that a definition of tribalism?
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 15,718
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:

    No, I said that the old system of free places for all disproportionately benefitted the well off, who were the principal users of the system and could have afforded to contribute.

    Most 18 year olds are not that wealthy. If parents of some 18 year olds wish to give money to their children then make it taxable income. Then treat all 18 year olds the same, and offer them the privilege of some form of training whether that be a university place or an apprenticeship, and only do this when they have met entry standards (e.g. Two Es at A-Level is not enough for the state to fund a degree)

    Yes, clearly we are talking about parents' wealth. My point was that the introduction of fees and raising of those fees hasn't discouraged students from less wealthy backgrounds; it would appear to be the opposite.

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... s-students

    Interesting idea on taxing income received from parents, but given the general outrage at inheritance tax, I can't see that coming to pass.

    Yes, there would be outrage. I have never understood why a child that works for their parents gets to pay tax, but one that is bone idle and simply receives the money, doesn't pay tax.

    Some bring their children up properly and others don't.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    1980s BSA 10sp

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,436
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:

    No, I said that the old system of free places for all disproportionately benefitted the well off, who were the principal users of the system and could have afforded to contribute.

    Most 18 year olds are not that wealthy. If parents of some 18 year olds wish to give money to their children then make it taxable income. Then treat all 18 year olds the same, and offer them the privilege of some form of training whether that be a university place or an apprenticeship, and only do this when they have met entry standards (e.g. Two Es at A-Level is not enough for the state to fund a degree)

    Yes, clearly we are talking about parents' wealth. My point was that the introduction of fees and raising of those fees hasn't discouraged students from less wealthy backgrounds; it would appear to be the opposite.

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... s-students

    Interesting idea on taxing income received from parents, but given the general outrage at inheritance tax, I can't see that coming to pass.

    Yes, there would be outrage. I have never understood why a child that works for their parents gets to pay tax, but one that is bone idle and simply receives the money, doesn't pay tax.

    Some bring their children up properly and others don't.

    If tax was voluntary, the country would struggle.
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,571
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:

    No, I said that the old system of free places for all disproportionately benefitted the well off, who were the principal users of the system and could have afforded to contribute.

    Most 18 year olds are not that wealthy. If parents of some 18 year olds wish to give money to their children then make it taxable income. Then treat all 18 year olds the same, and offer them the privilege of some form of training whether that be a university place or an apprenticeship, and only do this when they have met entry standards (e.g. Two Es at A-Level is not enough for the state to fund a degree)

    Yes, clearly we are talking about parents' wealth. My point was that the introduction of fees and raising of those fees hasn't discouraged students from less wealthy backgrounds; it would appear to be the opposite.

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... s-students

    Interesting idea on taxing income received from parents, but given the general outrage at inheritance tax, I can't see that coming to pass.

    Yes, there would be outrage. I have never understood why a child that works for their parents gets to pay tax, but one that is bone idle and simply receives the money, doesn't pay tax.

    Some bring their children up properly and others don't.

    If tax was voluntary, the country would struggle.

    the country is struggling. tax the rich.

    #supportyourcountry
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 37,513
    Ben6899 wrote:
    I wish it was this easy when I go *actual* fishing.
    Sorry your attempted virtue signalling got spotted Ben :wink:
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 37,513
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:

    No, I said that the old system of free places for all disproportionately benefitted the well off, who were the principal users of the system and could have afforded to contribute.

    Most 18 year olds are not that wealthy. If parents of some 18 year olds wish to give money to their children then make it taxable income. Then treat all 18 year olds the same, and offer them the privilege of some form of training whether that be a university place or an apprenticeship, and only do this when they have met entry standards (e.g. Two Es at A-Level is not enough for the state to fund a degree)

    Yes, clearly we are talking about parents' wealth. My point was that the introduction of fees and raising of those fees hasn't discouraged students from less wealthy backgrounds; it would appear to be the opposite.

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... s-students

    Interesting idea on taxing income received from parents, but given the general outrage at inheritance tax, I can't see that coming to pass.

    Yes, there would be outrage. I have never understood why a child that works for their parents gets to pay tax, but one that is bone idle and simply receives the money, doesn't pay tax.
    Simply put, income is taxed but gifts generally are not taxed.

    Change that and Christmas might get a bit tricky...
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 37,513
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:

    No, I said that the old system of free places for all disproportionately benefitted the well off, who were the principal users of the system and could have afforded to contribute.

    Most 18 year olds are not that wealthy. If parents of some 18 year olds wish to give money to their children then make it taxable income. Then treat all 18 year olds the same, and offer them the privilege of some form of training whether that be a university place or an apprenticeship, and only do this when they have met entry standards (e.g. Two Es at A-Level is not enough for the state to fund a degree)

    Yes, clearly we are talking about parents' wealth. My point was that the introduction of fees and raising of those fees hasn't discouraged students from less wealthy backgrounds; it would appear to be the opposite.

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... s-students

    Interesting idea on taxing income received from parents, but given the general outrage at inheritance tax, I can't see that coming to pass.

    Yes, there would be outrage. I have never understood why a child that works for their parents gets to pay tax, but one that is bone idle and simply receives the money, doesn't pay tax.

    Some bring their children up properly and others don't.

    If tax was voluntary, the country would struggle.

    the country is struggling. tax the rich.

    #supportyourcountry
    They already do :wink:

    #moreleftiebollox
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 8,436
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:

    No, I said that the old system of free places for all disproportionately benefitted the well off, who were the principal users of the system and could have afforded to contribute.

    Most 18 year olds are not that wealthy. If parents of some 18 year olds wish to give money to their children then make it taxable income. Then treat all 18 year olds the same, and offer them the privilege of some form of training whether that be a university place or an apprenticeship, and only do this when they have met entry standards (e.g. Two Es at A-Level is not enough for the state to fund a degree)

    Yes, clearly we are talking about parents' wealth. My point was that the introduction of fees and raising of those fees hasn't discouraged students from less wealthy backgrounds; it would appear to be the opposite.

    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... s-students

    Interesting idea on taxing income received from parents, but given the general outrage at inheritance tax, I can't see that coming to pass.

    Yes, there would be outrage. I have never understood why a child that works for their parents gets to pay tax, but one that is bone idle and simply receives the money, doesn't pay tax.
    Simply put, income is taxed but gifts generally are not taxed.

    Change that and Christmas might get a bit tricky...

    Systems can change. Christmas would be fine as only gifts above a certain annual threshold would be taxed. I'm aware it is not a policy that would get me elected.
  • Shirley BassoShirley Basso Posts: 3,132
    Gifts are taxed above a certain threshold are taxed, but only within a certain number of years of death (5 or 7 cant remember)
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 37,513
    Gifts are taxed above a certain threshold are taxed, but only within a certain number of years of death (5 or 7 cant remember)
    That's why I said generally. Although if any tax is voluntary, it's IHT.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666Stevo_666 Posts: 37,513
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Ben6899 wrote:
    I wouldn't vote for the Tories though. Because it's not all about me.
    I love the assumption that anyone voting Tory is doing so for selfish reasons but anyone voting Labour or Lib Dem are doing it for altruistic or compassionate reasons :)

    #leftiebollox

    Generalisations are unhelpful but who would you vote for? Tory, because you see it as the least worst option even after the last 3 years? Is that a definition of tribalism?
    I'll decide at the next GE. Unlikely to be a party that regards people like me as the enemy however.
    Whippet
    Bruiser
    Panzer
    Commuter

    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • robert88robert88 Posts: 2,706
    It occurred to me that if Boris Johnston does get to be pm (and I think that he will-he is the uk's mini-Trump) then Theresa May won't look so bad, historically speaking.
  • sgt.peppersgt.pepper Posts: 300
    robert88 wrote:
    It occurred to me that if Boris Johnston does get to be pm (and I think that he will-he is the uk's mini-Trump) then Theresa May won't look so bad, historically speaking.

    On the bright side, a Trump/Boris combo would be really funny.
  • robert88robert88 Posts: 2,706
    sgt.pepper wrote:
    robert88 wrote:
    It occurred to me that if Boris Johnston does get to be pm (and I think that he will-he is the uk's mini-Trump) then Theresa May won't look so bad, historically speaking.

    On the bright side, a Trump/Boris combo would be really funny.


    6a0105369e6edf970b01b7c8541c0b970b-800wi
  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 15,955
    Ludicrous comment of the week on today - that the large number of candidates to replace TM may be an indication of the talent in the Tory party. And this was moments after the suggestion that Priti Patel would be putting herself in the running!

    There's a clod of earth on my garden path that would make a better PM than that lot......
    Faster than a tent.......
Sign In or Register to comment.