Tony Blair

pblakeney

shirley_basso said:

pblakeney said:

shirley_basso said:

He's a 6-7 figure after dinner speaker

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking per head.
Ridiculous, isn't it. Muppets for paying though.

Companies pay, it's tax deductible and it guarantees good guests.

I had claire balding once - fark me she was dull.

Thanks for proving my point. It is nuts.
The thought of having Claire Balding though, eugh!

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

Doesn't really change the point though does it?

I have always had a different perspective as my mother worked for the uni as a lecturer and they were always chronically short of money, so she was broadly in favour of the fees as the education was properly suffering - whole departments shutting down despite decent student attendance etc.

So, on one thread you are arguing about the increasing disparity in wealth and in another you are arguing in favour of one of the causes?

orraloon

pblakeney said:

shirley_basso said:

pblakeney said:

shirley_basso said:

He's a 6-7 figure after dinner speaker

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking per head.
Ridiculous, isn't it. Muppets for paying though.

Companies pay, it's tax deductible and it guarantees good guests.

I had claire balding once - fark me she was dull.

Thanks for proving my point. It is nuts.
The thought of having Claire Balding though, eugh!

I see your Claire Balding and raise you Neil and Christine Hamilton. Simply awful. Gradual and increasing levels of departure to the bar.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

Doesn't really change the point though does it?

I have always had a different perspective as my mother worked for the uni as a lecturer and they were always chronically short of money, so she was broadly in favour of the fees as the education was properly suffering - whole departments shutting down despite decent student attendance etc.

So, on one thread you are arguing about the increasing disparity in wealth and in another you are arguing in favour of one of the causes?

Not in favour of reducing grants, but I thought the evidence that free university education was essentially a wealth transfer to the middle class anyway?

Ultimately in the UK it's not politically viable for the gov't to fully fund universities to the level they need to be, so the money has to come from somewhere. The public won't vote for it.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

Doesn't really change the point though does it?

I have always had a different perspective as my mother worked for the uni as a lecturer and they were always chronically short of money, so she was broadly in favour of the fees as the education was properly suffering - whole departments shutting down despite decent student attendance etc.

So, on one thread you are arguing about the increasing disparity in wealth and in another you are arguing in favour of one of the causes?

Not in favour of reducing grants, but I thought the evidence that free university education was essentially a wealth transfer to the middle class anyway?

Ultimately in the UK it's not politically viable for the gov't to fully fund universities to the level they need to be, so the money has to come from somewhere. The public won't vote for it.

Wee Krankie up north disagrees.

surrey_commuter

skyblueamateur said:

Best Prime Minister in my life-time by a country mile

****dons tin hat********

I may be older than you but would have him alongside Maggie

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

skyblueamateur said:

Best Prime Minister in my life-time by a country mile

****dons tin hat********

I may be older than you but would have him alongside Maggie

Do you count him as a true blue unlike the current imposter?

elbowloh

I know it's only another personal anecdote, but if it wasn't for grants and free-tuition, i would never have gone to uni.

Coming from a poor, single parent family, taking on a debt, every year for 3 or 4 years equivalent to my mum's entire annual salary would have been a non-starter.

The "potential" higher salary at the end of it has no guarantees and the idea that you don't pay it back if you don't earn enough would't really have registered. I can't quite explain it, but the idea of taking on such debt in the first place would have overwhelmed the idea that there's a back door out of it. Especially as my mum had no experience of debt, no credit cards and no loans.

briantrumpet

elbowloh said:

I know it's only another personal anecdote, but if it wasn't for grants and free-tuition, i would never have gone to uni.

Coming from a poor, single parent family, taking on a debt, every year for 3 or 4 years equivalent to my mum's entire annual salary would have been a non-starter.

The "potential" higher salary at the end of it has no guarantees and the idea that you don't pay it back if you don't earn enough would't really have registered. I can't quite explain it, but the idea of taking on such debt in the first place would have overwhelmed the idea that there's a back door out of it. Especially as my mum had no experience of debt, no credit cards and no loans.

Very similar here (ended up on full grant for the 2nd & 3rd years), though of course less than 10% of school leavers went to university then.

I do find it interesting that the massive university expansion has basically been achieved by saddling students with large debts.

kingstongraham

briantrumpet said:

elbowloh said:

I know it's only another personal anecdote, but if it wasn't for grants and free-tuition, i would never have gone to uni.

Coming from a poor, single parent family, taking on a debt, every year for 3 or 4 years equivalent to my mum's entire annual salary would have been a non-starter.

The "potential" higher salary at the end of it has no guarantees and the idea that you don't pay it back if you don't earn enough would't really have registered. I can't quite explain it, but the idea of taking on such debt in the first place would have overwhelmed the idea that there's a back door out of it. Especially as my mum had no experience of debt, no credit cards and no loans.

Very similar here (ended up on full grant for the 2nd & 3rd years), though of course less than 10% of school leavers went to university then.

I do find it interesting that the massive university expansion has basically been achieved by saddling students with large debts.

I.e. a graduate tax by stealth, but one that is less progressive than an actual graduate tax would be.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

Doesn't really change the point though does it?

I have always had a different perspective as my mother worked for the uni as a lecturer and they were always chronically short of money, so she was broadly in favour of the fees as the education was properly suffering - whole departments shutting down despite decent student attendance etc.

So, on one thread you are arguing about the increasing disparity in wealth and in another you are arguing in favour of one of the causes?

Not in favour of reducing grants, but I thought the evidence that free university education was essentially a wealth transfer to the middle class anyway?

Ultimately in the UK it's not politically viable for the gov't to fully fund universities to the level they need to be, so the money has to come from somewhere. The public won't vote for it.

Wee Krankie up north disagrees.

We pay more tax. Even then the Scottish economy doesn't pay for it. No clue what the plan is if they lose the 10% extra tax take and have to balance the books enough to join the EU. I doubt very much that everything can continue to be free for everyone.

Here is a question for you - would you pay £1300 a year more in income tax to keep someone else's child debt free? For someone else's child to have the right to a taxi ride to school if you live rurally, even if thir parents own a car? For everyone, even stockbrokers in Stockbridge to have free prescriptions, eye tests and dental care?

I do. Not completely sure how I feel about that, but it sure as hell isn't affordable in the long run without that £1300 be a hell of a lot more.

Jezyboy

surrey_commuter said:

skyblueamateur said:

Best Prime Minister in my life-time by a country mile

****dons tin hat********

I may be older than you but would have him alongside Maggie

In that they both ended up wreaking their parties electoral chances for a long time?

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

Doesn't really change the point though does it?

I have always had a different perspective as my mother worked for the uni as a lecturer and they were always chronically short of money, so she was broadly in favour of the fees as the education was properly suffering - whole departments shutting down despite decent student attendance etc.

So, on one thread you are arguing about the increasing disparity in wealth and in another you are arguing in favour of one of the causes?

Not in favour of reducing grants, but I thought the evidence that free university education was essentially a wealth transfer to the middle class anyway?

Ultimately in the UK it's not politically viable for the gov't to fully fund universities to the level they need to be, so the money has to come from somewhere. The public won't vote for it.

Wee Krankie up north disagrees.

We pay more tax. Even then the Scottish economy doesn't pay for it. No clue what the plan is if they lose the 10% extra tax take and have to balance the books enough to join the EU. I doubt very much that everything can continue to be free for everyone.

Here is a question for you - would you pay £1300 a year more in income tax to keep someone else's child debt free? For someone else's child to have the right to a taxi ride to school if you live rurally, even if thir parents own a car? For everyone, even stockbrokers in Stockbridge to have free prescriptions, eye tests and dental care?

I do. Not completely sure how I feel about that, but it sure as hell isn't affordable in the long run without that £1300 be a hell of a lot more.

The stockbrokers in Stockbridge are also paying even more, aren't they? So you aren't paying for theirs, you are paying for yours and someone else's - they are paying for their own and someone else's.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

Doesn't really change the point though does it?

I have always had a different perspective as my mother worked for the uni as a lecturer and they were always chronically short of money, so she was broadly in favour of the fees as the education was properly suffering - whole departments shutting down despite decent student attendance etc.

So, on one thread you are arguing about the increasing disparity in wealth and in another you are arguing in favour of one of the causes?

Not in favour of reducing grants, but I thought the evidence that free university education was essentially a wealth transfer to the middle class anyway?

Ultimately in the UK it's not politically viable for the gov't to fully fund universities to the level they need to be, so the money has to come from somewhere. The public won't vote for it.

Wee Krankie up north disagrees.

We pay more tax. Even then the Scottish economy doesn't pay for it. No clue what the plan is if they lose the 10% extra tax take and have to balance the books enough to join the EU. I doubt very much that everything can continue to be free for everyone.

Here is a question for you - would you pay £1300 a year more in income tax to keep someone else's child debt free? For someone else's child to have the right to a taxi ride to school if you live rurally, even if thir parents own a car? For everyone, even stockbrokers in Stockbridge to have free prescriptions, eye tests and dental care?

I do. Not completely sure how I feel about that, but it sure as hell isn't affordable in the long run without that £1300 be a hell of a lot more.

I do not want to debate the details of how it is achieved, only pointing out that it is possible.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

"Ask me for my three main priorities for government and I tell you: education, education and education ." Then tuition fees and ending of grants.

And absolute barrow loads spent on schools, from which you can still see the benefits.

morstar

Problem with uni funding is it’s not a closed system.

If you paid more and your education was better whilst all other things are the same, it makes a reasonable argument.

Reality is you pay more and the UNIs spend it how they want to spend it with many benefits of the income/expenditure being incredibly intangible or potentially useless.

Most Unis have divine modern campus buildings that whilst very fancy costs lots of money and don’t necessarily add to the educational experience.

rick_chasey

morstar said:

Problem with uni funding is it’s not a closed system.

If you paid more and your education was better whilst all other things are the same, it makes a reasonable argument.

Reality is you pay more and the UNIs spend it how they want to spend it with many benefits of the income/expenditure being incredibly intangible or potentially useless.

Most Unis have divine modern campus buildings that whilst very fancy costs lots of money and don’t necessarily add to the educational experience.

It may not be the same elsewhere but I know in Cambridge, most of the big fancy buildings are paid for by alumni donations - the money is lacking for salaries for teaching staff etc.

They're so short for things like bog roll and pencils - there are signs in the staff toilets about not using too much paper and you need to sign a form to get a pencil to use.

kingstongraham

They using a pencil to work it out?

rick_chasey

I know, right? It's mad, the whole thing. I remember revising in mum's room when she was doing some work - she was overlooking a multi-million pound new building development whilst she was trying to get a 10 year old mac to work.

It gets even weirder when you hear all the stories about the wine & food at colleges at Cambridge - they also get a lot of alumni money rather than the actual university.

Honestly ,the whole funding system is a mess and the people responsible for it are too wedded to the lifestyle of big egos, fancy college dinners and white elephant buildings to change it.

They need the shiny new toy to advance the research - the nuts and bolts of actual universities do not get their juices flowing.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

skyblueamateur said:

Best Prime Minister in my life-time by a country mile

****dons tin hat********

I may be older than you but would have him alongside Maggie

Do you count him as a true blue unlike the current imposter?

I don’t see it in terms of colours but yes I see him as being to the right of Boris

Jezyboy

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

skyblueamateur said:

Best Prime Minister in my life-time by a country mile

****dons tin hat********

I may be older than you but would have him alongside Maggie

Do you count him as a true blue unlike the current imposter?

I don’t see it in terms of colours but yes I see him as being to the right of Boris

I think this is where the traditional left right ideology breaks down slightly.

Boris has libertarian instincts, believes in private enterprise and greed being what delivered vacines. Simultaneously he wants a big state to reinvigorate the North, and thinks the government has a place in dictating what football clubs do as private companies.

I beleive Blair's ideology was more aligned, and I think this meant he could govern more easily.

surrey_commuter

Jezyboy said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

skyblueamateur said:

Best Prime Minister in my life-time by a country mile

****dons tin hat********

I may be older than you but would have him alongside Maggie

Do you count him as a true blue unlike the current imposter?

I don’t see it in terms of colours but yes I see him as being to the right of Boris

I think this is where the traditional left right ideology breaks down slightly.

Boris has libertarian instincts, believes in private enterprise and greed being what delivered vacines. Simultaneously he wants a big state to reinvigorate the North, and thinks the government has a place in dictating what football clubs do as private companies.

I beleive Blair's ideology was more aligned, and I think this meant he could govern more easily.

Boris and his supporters tell everybody he has libertarian instincts, hsi actions suggest he does not. Not sure Boris has said that he believes in private enterprise and the opposite of greed delivered the vaccine

If you judge him by his actions then he is an old school socialist believing in the state's ability to direct capital where it is needed better than the market. This of course leads to high taxes as they need to take your money off you as they are better at spending it. Too much will never be enough so they will top it up with borrowing which will be hidden with the figleaf of "investment"

On a spectrum that starts on the right with Maggie then runs through Cameron, Blair, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn where would you place Boris?

If you look back to the manifestos then for me he is around Brown/Miliband

photonic69

Re the arguament about Uni funding. Nah, Uni's are currently farked! Reseach funding from EU Partners has all but dried up. The most money comes in from International students (mostly Chinese and Indian) and that aint happening for a 2nd year in a row now. Add that on top of a massive Pension defecit (over generous, but I'm not complaining) and a pay scale that has been stagnant since 2007. Uni's have no budget for general maintainance and only get money for capital expenditure so yes, the might have some shiny new buildings whilst those around are crumbling, leaking and full of asbestos!
Yes, a lot of money comes in from Alumni donors, some of this would be for the above mentioned shiny new builds (if they are particularly loaded) but most goes on Student Scholarship funds to enable widening participation students to access uni.
When you think that the best Unis with high entry qualification requirement will be getting middle class, white students from Private School education, then for their parents sending Tarquin and Joel off to Uni is like a huge tax break for them!
Unis are having to make swathing cuts of staff, resources and courses just to stay viable. Some might actually close!

Anyway - I like Blair, despite his hair! It's only hair after all and most of us lose it and most of us look worse when we take our helmets off. He has more integrity in his left foot than the whole of BoJo's, slimy, conniving, shifty Etonian cabinet put together.

skyblueamateur

'Having let the nation down with the Good Friday Agreement'

I am intrigued by this one. Is the OP suggesting a capitulation/surrender by the British Govt?

veronese68

skyblueamateur said:

'Having let the nation down with the Good Friday Agreement'

I am intrigued by this one. Is the OP suggesting a capitulation/surrender by the British Govt?

I think it shows the OP's opinion is not worth wasting any time on.

Jezyboy

surrey_commuter said:

Jezyboy said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

skyblueamateur said:

Best Prime Minister in my life-time by a country mile

****dons tin hat********

I may be older than you but would have him alongside Maggie

Do you count him as a true blue unlike the current imposter?

I don’t see it in terms of colours but yes I see him as being to the right of Boris

I think this is where the traditional left right ideology breaks down slightly.

Boris has libertarian instincts, believes in private enterprise and greed being what delivered vacines. Simultaneously he wants a big state to reinvigorate the North, and thinks the government has a place in dictating what football clubs do as private companies.

I beleive Blair's ideology was more aligned, and I think this meant he could govern more easily.

Boris and his supporters tell everybody he has libertarian instincts, hsi actions suggest he does not. Not sure Boris has said that he believes in private enterprise and the opposite of greed delivered the vaccine

If you judge him by his actions then he is an old school socialist believing in the state's ability to direct capital where it is needed better than the market. This of course leads to high taxes as they need to take your money off you as they are better at spending it. Too much will never be enough so they will top it up with borrowing which will be hidden with the figleaf of "investment"

On a spectrum that starts on the right with Maggie then runs through Cameron, Blair, Brown, Miliband and Corbyn where would you place Boris?

If you look back to the manifestos then for me he is around Brown/Miliband

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56504546

Greed delivering the vaccine, apparently.

To be honest I assume that Dom thought he could direct capital than the market. I think this is partly inspired by cold War America. I don't think Boris cares one way or the other.

The delays around lockdown(s) , and the idea of keeping pubs open whilst saying maybe it's a good idea not to go to them, strikes me as someone with more libertarian instincts. But ones that he was happy to put aside.

ddraver

Think my opinion of Johnson is well documented, but I suspect his 'libertarian instincts' only apply to himself. Everyone else must do very much what they re told.

elbowloh

I think Boris's instincts are for whatever will serve him best at the time and pretty much nothing else.

rjsterry

Let's not forget telling universities what they should teach; tightening up protest rights; trying to put 'his' people at the head of the public broadcaster. Libertarianism is just one of the many flags he likes to wave to draw attention.

Jezyboy

To try and clarify, my point isn't that he is a massive libertarian.

My point is that his underlying ideology is a mess of contradictions. Thus putting him in a box marked left wing is to over simplify. Some more over simplifications showing how he spans the left and right wing below:

Eat out to help out - left wing ecomic stimulus.

Stamp duty holiday - right wing low tax is great stuff.

Being a flag nonce - "right wing socially"

Apparently caring about the environment, "left wing" socially.