View Full Version : John Thurso does a U turn
I see that John Thurso a.k.a. Sinclair abstained from voting against the rise in tuition fees (How they voted (http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/19128/tuition_fees_how_they_voted_.html))
A bit strange considering that he voted "strongly" against introducing fees for students. (They work for you) (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/john_thurso/caithness%2C_sutherland_and_easter_ross)
Seems he changes his mind as easily as he changes his name.
I hope that the electorate will remember this U turn at the next election.
I see that John Thurso a.k.a. Sinclair abstained from voting against the rise in tuition fees (How they voted (http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/19128/tuition_fees_how_they_voted_.html))
A bit strange considering that he voted "strongly" against introducing fees for students. (They work for you) (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/john_thurso/caithness%2C_sutherland_and_easter_ross)
Seems he changes his mind as easily as he changes his name.
I hope that the electorate will remember this U turn at the next election.
Oh come on Anfield, if you look into it, you'll see it's abetter deal that under Labour, John was only doing what's best.. where's this Midlothian question anyway? ;)
A politician being two faced ? Whatever next, bears defecating in the woods ?
John Little
09-Dec-10, 21:46
I see naught but a decent man placed in an impossible situation and faced with three choices. He chose the only one he could.
I see these protesting students causing mayhem in London, smashing windows, throwing paint and rocks at Price Charles in his car, trying to get into buildings, smashing windows in Oxford Street..
Don't know why the coppers just stood by and took it. Send in a snatch squad, grab 'em and 'sort em out' I say..
(yea OK the trouble-causers were not students but most were anarchists - saw one waving his diagonal red and black flag)
I see naught but a decent man placed in an impossible situation and faced with three choices. He chose the only one he could.
A decent man in parliament, that is one of your better ones John. The last decent man in Parliament was Guy Fawkes
He had one choice. vote against Bill and stand by his convictions. By abstaining he has failed himself as a man of honour.
Would you trust him again?
John Little
09-Dec-10, 22:03
Fact is that we have too many universities. We all know it.
It over-specializes legions of school leavers, sets a false standard for how to get on and leaves our country short of skills.
Why?
Because a bunch of doctrinaire socialists misread the idea that education leads to greater social mobility. So it does - but it means you educate people. That does not mean that we all have to go to university.
D'oh.
So everybody has to have a degree......
and they open dozens of universities. University of Salford, University of East London, University of South London, University of North London, University of East London and so on for ever and ever amen.
Trouble is that it all has to be paid for.
Not like the 60s when 8% went to uni.
So what do you do with so many art, media and sociology degrees?
Give a good plumber, electrician, carpenter or plasterer a certificate equivalent to a degree..... the ability to earn a living and carry out a trade and I give not a fig for degrees.
And who pays?
Certainly not the Fabians who dreamed the system up.
John Little
09-Dec-10, 22:05
A decent man in parliament, that is one of your better ones John. The last decent man in Parliament was Guy Fawkes
He had one choice. vote against Bill and stand by his convictions. By abstaining he has failed himself as a man of honour.
Would you trust him again?
Your literalism disappoints me - I am sure that you have more empathy.
John Little
09-Dec-10, 22:06
And yes - he started in the Miller Academy on the same day as me. I remember him vividly because he wore highland dress. I would trust him for I know him to be a human being and no monster.
Walter Ego
09-Dec-10, 22:15
I see that John Thurso a.k.a. Sinclair abstained from voting against the rise in tuition fees (How they voted (http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/19128/tuition_fees_how_they_voted_.html))
A bit strange considering that he voted "strongly" against introducing fees for students. (They work for you) (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/john_thurso/caithness%2C_sutherland_and_easter_ross)
Seems he changes his mind as easily as he changes his name.
I hope that the electorate will remember this U turn at the next election.
You're a bit of a stuck record really, arent you?
Run along now. There's a good scouser.
The last decent man in Parliament was Guy Fawkes
:eek: Didn't see that one coming.
Whatever next? The Labour government was corrupt? 9/11 was a conspiracy? The reason behind Iraq is oil?
When did the world become so cynical?:confused
You're a bit of a stuck record really, arent you?
Run along now. There's a good scouser.
Is there such a thing as a good scouser? If so introduce him to me and I will buy him a drink.
Is there such a thing as a good scouser? If so introduce him to me and I will buy him a drink.
That is an interesting question. There must be at least one.........Now let me think a while.............:confused
Not like the 60s????
I hope you aren't suggesting it was a good thing to have 8% at uni in the 60s?
People like my mum who could not afford to go to university, like my mother in law who had no inkling that universities might consider people from the gorbals. A university education was put of reach of many ordinary people, not just because of cost but
also because of attitude.
My 15 year old is hoping to do medicine and he is ALREADY at 15 worrying about paying for it, having
enough money to live and eat and study. No matter
how much we reassure him, it is still a worry for
him. He is not stupid, he sees how we struggle sometimes and he says all the kids are feeling the same. Doing their Prelims has them thinking about their future. What are we doing to our young
people that at 15 they are worrying about this stuff.
The Pepsi Challenge
10-Dec-10, 03:55
Education should be a right, not a privilege. End of story.
Aaldtimer
10-Dec-10, 04:29
Not like the 60s????
I hope you aren't suggesting it was a good thing to have 8% at uni in the 60s?
People like my mum who could not afford to go to university, like my mother in law who had no inkling that universities might consider people from the gorbals. A university education was put of reach of many ordinary people, not just because of cost but
also because of attitude.
My 15 year old is hoping to do medicine and he is ALREADY at 15 worrying about paying for it, having
enough money to live and eat and study. No matter
how much we reassure him, it is still a worry for
him. He is not stupid, he sees how we struggle sometimes and he says all the kids are feeling the same. Doing their Prelims has them thinking about their future. What are we doing to our young
people that at 15 they are worrying about this stuff.
Nah, he should just settle for being a buger flipper...Thatcher's legacy![disgust]
This, for me, is an example of why British Democracy fails.
Why do we vote for an individual to represent us if he or she is "tied" by the party line. Why have so many MP's if they're all only going to vote by their leaders policies?
John Thurso was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He could do what he thought was best, or he could follow the policy set by his leader. Vote against and he'd be labelled a "Rebel" by the press and any chances of progression within the party lost.
As for the whole fees debate, and this "education for not only the rich", I think it's being blown out of proportion. Nobody has to pay up front, so nobody who could go to university now wouldn't be able to after any fees rise. The difference would be the debt they are in at the end of their studies.
Now, I believe that too many people go to university nowadays, doing courses that will never lead to employment or only to employment where previously a degree was not required.
Why should the public pay for this? Why shouldn't they pay also to educate the vocational trades?
If your degree isn't going to lead to a well paid job, worthy of the sacrifice of hard work and money, then it probably isn't worth doing.
The Pepsi Challenge
10-Dec-10, 07:06
If your degree isn't going to lead to a well paid job, worthy of the sacrifice of hard work and money, then it probably isn't worth doing.
How do you know? Can you provide some examples of which degrees will not lead to a well-paid job?
How do you know? Can you provide some examples of which degrees will not lead to a well-paid job?
Any degree MIGHT lead to a well be paid job, but many probably won't, simply because the quantity of university positions vastly outnumber the demand in those areas.
I know people with degrees in sports science working in swimming pools and gyms for a pound or two above minimum wage. I know people with degrees in psychology answering phones and changing passwords at BT in Thurso. Why should the public fund these people to the tune of tens of thousands each?
My point was that sometimes you have to speculate to accumulate.
I decided to buy a house rather than rent. Far more expensive in the immediate future but, on balance, I thought it would leave me better off in the future. Going to university is the same. If you think it will improve your position and be beneficial in the future, pay for it and do it. If you don't, don't.
The Pepsi Challenge
10-Dec-10, 07:27
Personally, I see education as a means to learn more and better myself. Money doesn't really come into it, though it helps.
My 15 year old is hoping to do medicine and he is ALREADY at 15 worrying about paying for it, having
enough money to live and eat and study. No matter
how much we reassure him, it is still a worry for
him. He is not stupid, he sees how we struggle sometimes and he says all the kids are feeling the same. Doing their Prelims has them thinking about their future. What are we doing to our young
people that at 15 they are worrying about this stuff.
Good luck to him, a worthy profession.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that medicine and nursing related courses are paid for by the NHS or student awards in Scotland, so if that is the case he needn't worry too much.
I have no problem with the government subsidising such worthy degrees, those in demand. The medical profession is obviously one of them.
I do however know at least one person who had their fees paid for studying a medical profession with no intention of ever working for the NHS. They went private soon after graduating. Perhaps the system should be less open to abuse, where people accepting funding have to commit to a minimum period of employment by the NHS?
EDIT: Here's a link, students in health professions get their first 4 years fees paid as well as possible bursaries. Support also available beyond 4 year courses: http://www.student-support-saas.gov.uk/student_support/special_circumstances/health_support.htm
Personally, I see education as a means to learn more and better myself. Money doesn't really come into it, though it helps.
And that's fair enough, I've continued my education through the all my life, also to better myself. I pay the course fees as I see them as value for money. But if I didn't, I wouldn't.
John Little
10-Dec-10, 08:06
Not like the 60s????
I hope you aren't suggesting it was a good thing to have 8% at uni in the 60s?
People like my mum who could not afford to go to university, like my mother in law who had no inkling that universities might consider people from the gorbals. A university education was put of reach of many ordinary people, not just because of cost but
also because of attitude.
My 15 year old is hoping to do medicine and he is ALREADY at 15 worrying about paying for it, having
enough money to live and eat and study. No matter
how much we reassure him, it is still a worry for
him. He is not stupid, he sees how we struggle sometimes and he says all the kids are feeling the same. Doing their Prelims has them thinking about their future. What are we doing to our young
people that at 15 they are worrying about this stuff.
I did not say that a 60s situation was good.
Education should be a right, not a privilege. End of story.
I have said nothing about education per se.
However I completely deny that university is the only possible path to education or that a degree is the only standard against which to measure it.
It has only become so because of elitism and snobbery.
Why not good vocational equivalent qualifications done at well planned local colleges in the evenings. That's been done before to very good effect - by the Labour government 1945-50, during Austerity and saving money. They produced a generation of technically educated people who did not have degrees but qualifications underpinned by professional bodies such as the IEE.
The Pepsi Challenge
10-Dec-10, 08:35
I do agree with you in many regards. The best education I ever received was from going down the library. Cost not a penny.
How could he possibly vote on an issue which raises the tuition fees when they are free in Scotland. To abstain was his only honourable option.
How would you feel if it was the other way around - free in England then an Englishman voting to increase fees in Scotland. I suppose "anfield" would howl "unfair" at that.
I did an IT degree (Computer and Networks) was the only one in the class to get a 1st, even received a national award.
BTW up until 1992 I think there were no student loans, it was all tax funded bursaries and the amount received back then and before that also had more buying power than the amount received now.
I know there's a lot of belief that all students do is spend their money on alcohol, in my case and in the cases of the people I knew that wasn't so. We spent most of our funding on accommodation (read crappy overpriced flats owned by slum lords).
People hold up the US system as the one we should follow, I think that's misguided but if we do follow it then where are the scholarships? I'm reasonably confident I would have won one were they offered.
I'd say they make the degrees harder. I'd have taught what I was taught in 4th year in 1st year. All university did was give me the time to learn things on my own time. That being said I think some jobs need to have a degree as a prerequisite; some jobs need to professionalised. IT is one area, right now we have people with jobs above their level, to use a medical analogy - it would be live hiring cleaners and hospital porters for chief surgeon positions.
EDIT: Not to disparage or say there's anything wrong with any of those job of course.
The Music Monster
10-Dec-10, 09:52
It's disgusting what has happened, but it's happened and lets just move on. I was very sympathetic towards the students until I saw their behaviour. I still think it is wrong that they have raised the fees, but there's nothing we can do about it.
If you feel your MP has let you down then tell him, not us... Having said that I happen to know a student who wrote to four or five MPs about the whole thing and received a reply from everyone BUT John Thurso - her own MP:confused!!
northener
10-Dec-10, 10:02
How could he possibly vote on an issue which raises the tuition fees when they are free in Scotland. To abstain was his only honourable option.
How would you feel if it was the other way around - free in England then an Englishman voting to increase fees in Scotland. I suppose "anfield" would howl "unfair" at that.
A very good point.
And I'm convinced Anfield is just pogonophobic.....;)
I agree with Anfield. I understand he is stuck in a difficult situation as he needs to stand by his party. But who comes first, his constituants or his party???? His party i think, but doesnt rock the boat so chooses not to vote.
What causes concern for me is a party that signs a document on national tv stating no fees, and does a complete U turn in a instant. They have basically lied to their votees. Alot of people voted lib dems specifically because of the no fee statement they signed on the TV.
They run our country and have basically lied to their voters.
The Pepsi Challenge
10-Dec-10, 10:24
If John Thurso told me he was wearing a moustache, I'd have to pull at it to make sure.
The LibDems are all but finished as a political party.
I did an IT degree (Computer and Networks) was the only one in the class to get a 1st, even received a national award.
I'd say they make the degrees harder. I'd have taught what I was taught in 4th year in 1st year. All university did was give me the time to learn things on my own time. That being said I think some jobs need to have a degree as a prerequisite; some jobs need to professionalised. IT is one area, right now we have people with jobs above their level, to use a medical analogy - it would be live hiring cleaners and hospital porters for chief surgeon positions.
I think part of the problem is that degrees are too easy to get, and too many people get them.
That is why the prospects from gaining one have been devalued. I'd rather go back to a time where a smaller percentage, maybe the top 15-20% (Academically) of students go to university. Maybe then we could even afford to offer them free fees.
Government policy has been to keep as many people in "further education" as possible. Now, they may say that this is to improve our skills, but I'm more cynical and think it's just a way of fudging the unemployment figures. X Million amount of people "in full time education" means X million less unemployed.
Look at Germany, the engineering superpower of Europe and the second biggest exporter in the world, only just behind China. Yes, they promote university education but there is also a lot of emphasis on having skilled "hands on" people serving apprenticeships and then further becoming "master" craftsmen. THESE are the people producing the end product, and although the degree qualified engineer is needed, for every one there must be a lot more trades people.
That is where we have fallen backwards I think, the degree is the benchmark for success and anyone not obtaining one is somehow inferior. Tell that to the plumber in London on £70k a year or the electrician offshore working 2/3 on £55k.
Maybe if universities were producing the skills "in demand" rather than a large number of mickey mouse qualifications the average graduate wage would rise above £20k.
I understand he is stuck in a difficult situation as he needs to stand by his party. But who comes first, his constituants or his party???? His party i think, but doesnt rock the boat so chooses not to vote.
They run our country and have basically lied to their voters
And there lies the problem with our system.
Many people vote for a party rather than an MP. Our system is set up to allow each area of the country to have their own representative in parliament. An MP with two "prorities", his party and his constituents cannot possibly do whats best for both.
I'd ban party politics and force everyone to stand as independant.
What causes concern for me is a party that signs a document on national tv stating no fees, and does a complete U turn in a instant. They have basically lied to their votees. Alot of people voted lib dems specifically because of the no fee statement they signed on the TV.
And that is where democracy itself fails.
In order to get into power, the party has to be popular and win votes. What's popular is not always for the good.
If children could vote for parents they'd choose the one that spoiled them, fed them sweets and cakes, let them stay up late and not force them to do homework. Is that the best parent for the child? No way - but they'd win the "parental" election.
I think part of the problem is that degrees are too easy to get, and too many people get them.
That is why the prospects from gaining one have been devalued. I'd rather go back to a time where a smaller percentage, maybe the top 15-20% (Academically) of students go to university. Maybe then we could even afford to offer them free fees.
Government policy has been to keep as many people in "further education" as possible. Now, they may say that this is to improve our skills, but I'm more cynical and think it's just a way of fudging the unemployment figures. X Million amount of people "in full time education" means X million less unemployed.
Look at Germany, the engineering superpower of Europe and the second biggest exporter in the world, only just behind China. Yes, they promote university education but there is also a lot of emphasis on having skilled "hands on" people serving apprenticeships and then further becoming "master" craftsmen. THESE are the people producing the end product, and although the degree qualified engineer is needed, for every one there must be a lot more trades people.
That is where we have fallen backwards I think, the degree is the benchmark for success and anyone not obtaining one is somehow inferior. Tell that to the plumber in London on £70k a year or the electrician offshore working 2/3 on £55k.
Maybe if universities were producing the skills "in demand" rather than a large number of mickey mouse qualifications the average graduate wage would rise above £20k.
Yeah 10-20% seems like a good number to me, I'd base it solely on ability, I'd have the universities set their own entrance exams, they also need to just kick people out when they fail repeatedly: One of my flatmates repeated 1st year 4 times, getting funding each time, he eventually dropped out, worked at BT for a while then joined the navy.
I barely put in 10% of effort to get that first BTW which is a joke, I managed to stay enthusiastic about university up until the end of October my 1st year. Then I realised what a joke the whole thing was, hardly showed up to lectures or labs, just handed in coursework and sat the exams. Spent my free time tinkering and teaching myself new things.
In my year we started with about 60 people, by end that went down to 12 and of those I'd say only 3 really knew what they were doing and about 4 had potential if encouraged or hired by the right place.
I agree the market is saturated with graduates, we need to reduce that number or employers need to start testing applicants or hiring on initial 3 month contracts or something, I'd know within the first few minutes if the guy I'm interviewing knows what he's talking about.
EDIT: BTW graduate schemes are too general and crap, all the IT ones I looked at basically seemed to want a business studies type who knew how to do presentations and what social media was.
And yes - he started in the Miller Academy on the same day as me. I remember him vividly because he wore highland dress. I would trust him for I know him to be a human being and no monster.
I have never had the pleasure of meeting the man, however, I have had frequent correspondence with him on a number of occasions,
and on a variety of issues and what I can say is that he is man who cares about his constituency and it's people with a passion seldom seen these days
the issue of tuition fees, close to the heart of many is wholly at the feet of the tories surely, and I think that Mr.Thurso's abstinence is a clear indication of the contempt he must be feeling toward a party such as the tories completely overriding / ignoring the lib-dems by pushing this through.
In this instance, I do not see this as U turn, at all.
Am I right in thinking that students only have to pay the money back when they are earning more than a certain amount?
If so what is the problem and how many Bankers, private doctors and dentists, solicitors and lawyers went to Uni, why should they not pay? They are the very rich people in the making that they complain about .
I paid for all my fees as it was a private course, I didn't go out in the street smashing things up,I worked to save up for it and borrowed from a bank and paid it off when I got work, and supplemented my income by working in bars , maybe people will think more carefully before going to Uni in choosing their courses if they have to pay, I know many who have never used their course after graduating.
Am I right in thinking that students only have to pay the money back when they are earning more than a certain amount?
If so what is the problem and how many Bankers, private doctors and dentists, solicitors and lawyers went to Uni, why should they not pay? They are the very rich people in the making that they complain about .
I paid for all my fees as it was a private course, I didn't go out in the street smashing things up,I worked to save up for it and borrowed from a bank and paid it off when I got work, and supplemented my income by working in bars , maybe people will think more carefully before going to Uni in choosing their courses if they have to pay, I know many who have never used their course after graduating.
you make some valid points here and you do pose some very valid questions
some people are in uni, just out of the way of the buses,
certainly there were many who in my day had no incline or understanding of their chosen courses, let alone what they were going to do upon leaving uni. and some people as you say did not follow through those careers either.
Am I right in thinking that students only have to pay the money back when they are earning more than a certain amount?
If so what is the problem and how many Bankers, private doctors and dentists, solicitors and lawyers went to Uni, why should they not pay? They are the very rich people in the making that they complain about .
I paid for all my fees as it was a private course, I didn't go out in the street smashing things up,I worked to save up for it and borrowed from a bank and paid it off when I got work, and supplemented my income by working in bars , maybe people will think more carefully before going to Uni in choosing their courses if they have to pay, I know many who have never used their course after graduating.
Well the debt constantly accrues interest and you start paying back when you earn over 17k. The thing is most of the high level bankers, lawyers et al went to university before 1992 when it was all free and tax payer funded. I think it should be funded but that less people should go and that this could be achieved by raising standards and reforming the high school system.
Presumably the same argument could be used to deny funding many things -- I personally don't use certain public servers and don't plan on having kids.
pinotnoir
10-Dec-10, 14:10
At age fourteen 20% of boys in the UK have a reading age of seven.
Ninety thousand leave school at age sixteen every year without a qualification, job, training or education.
1.2 million between the age of sixteen and twenty four are unemployed.
We still don't know what to do for them except encourage them to join the Army.
That is the meaningful deficit in our country.
Well the debt constantly accrues interest and you start paying back when you earn over 17k. The thing is most of the high level bankers, lawyers et al went to university before 1992 when it was all free and tax payer funded. I think it should be funded but that less people should go and that this could be achieved by raising standards and reforming the high school system.
Presumably the same argument could be used to deny funding many things -- I personally don't use certain public servers and don't plan on having kids.
My point on the bankers is that there will be many students today that will become financiers or high level earners, who will then pay back their fees. I agree the standard of high school education is woeful.
At age fourteen 20% of boys in the UK have a reading age of seven.
Ninety thousand leave school at age sixteen every year without a qualification, job, training or education.
1.2 million between the age of sixteen and twenty four are unemployed.
We still don't know what to do for them except encourage them to join the Army.
That is the meaningful deficit in our country.
Yes, these figures are a worry.
But the fact is that some people aren't clever enough for higher education. The creation and promotion of vocational training is needed, and also a change in the attitude that such training and professions are "second best".
The answer is not to proliferate higher education or to saturate the establishments already there. That is only detrimental to those there and those who deserve to be there.
At age fourteen 20% of boys in the UK have a reading age of seven.
Ninety thousand leave school at age sixteen every year without a qualification, job, training or education.
1.2 million between the age of sixteen and twenty four are unemployed.
We still don't know what to do for them except encourage them to join the Army.
That is the meaningful deficit in our country.
Kind of getting off-topic here but the figures for boys are partly related to the feminisation of the education system especially at primary school level, the current system doesn't engage or challenge them the way it used to.
You're a bit of a stuck record really, arent you?
Run along now. There's a good scouser.
Is there such a thing as a good scouser? If so introduce him to me and I will buy him a drink.
That is an interesting question. There must be at least one.........Now let me think a while.............:confused
Good God, theres three of them. They will be on "Britains Got Talent" next year.
Why not good vocational equivalent qualifications done at well planned local colleges in the evenings. That's been done before to very good effect - by the Labour government 1945-50, during Austerity and saving money. They produced a generation of technically educated people who did not have degrees but qualifications underpinned by professional bodies such as the IEE.
Do You mean apprenticeships? Unfortunately these are another sign of a byegone era when Britain was good at manufacturing things.
The people who you refer to who studied in the late 40's & 50's are the very same people who helped turn this once proud nation into an industrial wasteland.
How could he possibly vote on an issue which raises the tuition fees when they are free in Scotland. To abstain was his only honourable option.
How would you feel if it was the other way around - free in England then an Englishman voting to increase fees in Scotland. I suppose "anfield" would howl "unfair" at that.
It has not stopped him voting on other issues which do not affect Scotland
The LibDems are all but finished as a political party.
Or so the media would like to believe.
I can't see the Lib Dems getting into Parliament on their own in a hundred years but they have proved themselves an effective and trustworthy coalition partner.
Or so the media would like to believe.
I dont think its just the media Ducati, I think the whole student vote would have voted LD next time if they hadnt gone into cahoots with the Con's. But The LD have proved that they are just the same as the rest, look after their own, make sure the well known players get good posts in the Govt and stuff the rest of the UK.
I didnt mind Danny Alexander but since he has been parading himself as some God to politics I cant even look at him without throwing up..
I too think that they are finished, dead and buried.
C3...:mad:
I dont think its just the media Ducati, I think the whole student vote would have voted LD next time if they hadnt gone into cahoots with the Con's. But The LD have proved that they are just the same as the rest, look after their own, make sure the well known players get good posts in the Govt and stuff the rest of the UK.
I didnt mind Danny Alexander but since he has been parading himself as some God to politics I cant even look at him without throwing up..
I too think that they are finished, dead and buried.
C3...:mad:
Students grow up :lol:
John Little
10-Dec-10, 20:35
I was not referring to apprenticeships though they are not a bad idea. I was referring to a programme of nightschools initiated by Labour in 1946 where working class people, who could not afford it otherwise, could go and study after work for qualifications in electrics, engineering etc.
They took place in local schools in the evening.
That's how a lot of Dounreay types, my dad among them, got their start on a career ladder.
I can't see the Lib Dems getting into Parliament on their own in a hundred years but they have proved themselves an effective and trustworthy coalition partner.
You mean that when Cameron says "jump" Clegg says "how high"
John Little
11-Dec-10, 18:36
You mean that when Cameron says "jump" Clegg says "how high"
No.
more like you give a set of undertakings based on what you conceive a situation to be. IE that you think things are being run in a sane and responsible manner.
Then when you actually do get into power you find that actually the whole management has been insane and irresponsible and that the situation is not what everyone was being told it was.
But everybody else still wants to believe in the illusions they have. To climb back into the matrix.
But unfortunately the real world is not the way you want it to be so you have to get real.
So who is more culpable? The ones who have to get real?
Or the ones who fooled everyone into thinking all was hunky-dory?
Remember - 'There's no money left - sorry.' ?
They meant it.
You mean that when Cameron says "jump" Clegg says "how high"
Your dissent for all things conservative and liberal suggests you support labour.
I wonder, do you think they did a good job when in power?
Remember - 'There's no money left - sorry.' ?
They meant it.
It is not just about fiscal issues- The UK has had a balance of trade deficit for God knows how many years, way before Blair/Brown were in charge of economy.
I am talking about principals and convictions, two things which the leaders of the LibDems have abandoned.
Individual MP's had a chance of reversing this turnaround, and in fairness some did vote against this bill, but abstaining from the vote is in effect a vote for it.
Your dissent for all things conservative and liberal suggests you support labour.
I wonder, do you think they did a good job when in power?
I used to support Labour, but gave up when they becames clones of the Tories.
With regards to your question "did they do a good job when in power" I think, in fairness to Blair, that they inherited the same financial & social mess that the current Government has had to deal with.
If Blair had not tried to mirror the USA in both economic and social issues who knows what would have happened
John Little
11-Dec-10, 19:17
"I am talking about principals and convictions..."
Which Liberal principles and convictions are those?
"I am talking about principals and convictions..."
Which Liberal principles and convictions are those?
This one for starters (http://www.libdems.org.uk/search.aspx?search=tuition&x=21&y=12)
John Little
11-Dec-10, 19:30
My apologies - you misunderstand me.
I was not speaking of commitments made under false impressions on the state of the nation.
I was asking what principles and convictions of Liberalism they have abandoned?
Fact is that we have too many universities. We all know it.
It over-specializes legions of school leavers, sets a false standard for how to get on and leaves our country short of skills.
Why?
Because a bunch of doctrinaire socialists misread the idea that education leads to greater social mobility. So it does - but it means you educate people. That does not mean that we all have to go to university.
D'oh.
So everybody has to have a degree......
and they open dozens of universities. University of Salford, University of East London, University of South London, University of North London, University of East London and so on for ever and ever amen.
Trouble is that it all has to be paid for.
Not like the 60s when 8% went to uni.
So what do you do with so many art, media and sociology degrees?
Give a good plumber, electrician, carpenter or plasterer a certificate equivalent to a degree..... the ability to earn a living and carry out a trade and I give not a fig for degrees.
And who pays?
Certainly not the Fabians who dreamed the system up.Hmmm John.....
If you knew London as well as I think you knew London you will remember that those new unis you seem to blame on doctrinaire socialists and Fabians existed long before they were turned into unis in 1992 under the Major Government at a time when the tories had been in power for 13 years.
I'm sure you remember the South Bank Poly and North East London Poly and North London Poly and West London Poly and you forgot the Central London Poly and the city of London Poly. All of these existed long before then and all became unis in 1992 if I remember. I had a lot of friends at South Bank Poly and the Guildhall, both now sadly not existing under those names.
It doesn't matter whether they are called colleges of further education, polytechnics or unis. They were created to fill a need for post-school education in a modern society where post-school-level skills were needed. I would guess that their renaming to unis shifted their emphasis away from some vocational trades and HNCs and HNDs and towards degrees in less obviously useful subjects and this may not have been the best either for them or for our society as a whole. But these unis were not created on the spot by socialists or even by tories. Many of them grew out of training centres established in the industrial age and they are now having to adapt.
Perhaps only 8% of the population went to uni in the 1960s but a much bigger fraction than that went to Polytechnics and other post-school education in a sector that now barely exists in name because they all turned into unis. Compare the numbers if you wish but please compare like with like.
Now who would support a College of Witchcraft in the Dome? ;)
John Little
11-Dec-10, 19:51
I mean, on at least two Liberal principles they have stuck firmly to the letter of Liberalism
First principle of Liberal finance is that your budget balances the books. You don't spend more than you have unless you can pay it back. Fiscal probity underpins classic Liberalism.
Secondly, instead of giving things to people which they have done nothing for, legislate to provide self-help mechanisms so that peoples' self-reliance is not destroyed.
Liberalism is not watered down Socialism - it has its own ideology.
I mean, on at least two Liberal principles they have stuck firmly to the letter of Liberalism
First principle of Liberal finance is that your budget balances the books. You don't spend more than you have unless you can pay it back. Fiscal probity underpins classic Liberalism.
What do the Liberals know about modern day finance?
The last time they were in power the UK was a major player in world economics
[quote=John Little;797664Secondly, instead of giving things to people which they have done nothing for, legislate to provide self-help mechanisms so that peoples' self-reliance is not destroyed.
Liberalism is not watered down Socialism - it has its own ideology.[/quote]
Yes I agree, Liberalism is not watered down Socialism, It is now true blue Tory
John Little
11-Dec-10, 20:35
LOL.
Principles are universally applied. Whether to modern day finance or housekeeping or the finance of the 1920s.
It was you who started speaking of principles - I told you two.
As to whether Liberalism equates with Conservatism, it does not.
Conservative economics rely on the production of wealth so that it may trickle down through society.
Liberalism also believes in sound economy. The difference is that they tax more and use the money to provide self help mechanisms. You think it not applicable to today but still pay National Insurance and if unemployed go to a Job centre - both Liberal ideas.
Socialism taxes even more because the fundamental flaw with socialism is its reliance on taxing the haves to help the have nots.
Which sounds fine as an idea and helps many people who cannot help themselves- but does not allow for a certain indolence which it breeds in those who have no intention of helping themselves but prefer to rely on the efforts of others.
As an ideology I would say that it is Socialism that has shown itself to be outmoded rather than Liberalism.
The last part of your response is not really an answer - just a slogan.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.