War & PoliticsSomething good from the Coalition

  

Press Ctrl+Enter to quickly submit your post
Quick Reply  
 
 
  
 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)   21 Dec 2010 20:00 
 To:  Jo (JELLS)      10 of 20 
38033.10 In reply to 38033.8 
quote:
Clegg always made it clear they'd not be able to get rid of fees any time soon

There's a difference between not getting rid of fees, and increasing them to £10k a year.

I doubt anyone (except a few idealists) expected fees to instantly vanish, but to put them to a level that will cause significant financial burden on anyone not rich who wants to go to uni is stupid.


quote:
Considering the whole thing was cobbled together in 5 days

If it was truly cobbled together in 5 days, then the people involved are not fit to run a country.

The press were constantly going on about a possible/probable coalition from the start, so each of the parties should have planned well in advance, deciding on possible strategies for each of the significant measure of votes.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)   21 Dec 2010 20:04 
 To:  ANT_THOMAS      11 of 20 
38033.11 In reply to 38033.9 
quote:
It's just going to be a big number in the billions

So?

There's no reason both can't be given, such as: "we're increasing health spending from 50 billion to 88 billion, an increase of 76% over the previous administration".

That way the people that want the information can have it.

(Although it's probably still meaningless information - e.g. if costs have doubled then they're spending 24% less)
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Message 38033.12 deleted 23 May 2015 21:34 by 53NORTH

 From:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)   21 Dec 2010 20:51 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      13 of 20 
38033.13 In reply to 38033.10 
to put them to a level that will cause significant financial burden on anyone not rich who wants to go to uni is stupid.

Au contraire. Everyone going to uni and getting a degree so that the possession of same is meaningless, now that's stupid. There has to be some way of limiting the number of degree-holders so that it regains its cachet. And taking it out of the reach of the poor and disadvantaged is as good a method as any. :Y

And I'm sure Rendle will agree with me.

bastard by name, bastard by nature
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Jo (JELLS)   21 Dec 2010 21:28 
 To:  Peter (BOUGHTONP)      14 of 20 
38033.14 In reply to 38033.10 
quote:
The press were constantly going on about a possible/probable coalition from the start, so each of the parties should have planned well in advance, deciding on possible strategies for each of the significant measure of votes.


Actually, the press was mostly saying it would be a hung parliament. A hung parliament doesn't mean there will be a coalition - the past 3 elections in Canada have been hung parliaments and we've ended up with 3 minority governments. I don't think anyone really expected a coalition - maybe some sort of confidence agreement between 2 parties, but not really a full-out coalition because they're so very rare in Westminster parliamentary systems. However, that said, the Tories were well prepared - Oliver Letwin even dug up old Lib Dem ideas from past conferences to propose to them. Labour admits it had no plan (or interest to be frank) in a coalition, and so had absolutely nothing to offer the Lib Dems when they started talks. The Lib Dems had also done some work. However, even then, it normally takes weeks, if not months, in other countries where coalitions are the norm and everyone knows the election will result in a coalition, for parties to negotiate a workable coalition platform. To hope to achieve the same level of comprehensive coalition programme in five days is quite unrealistic. There was all sorts of (what i think were totally artificial) deadlines being put on the parties - like they had to recall parliament by such and such a date because the Queen's speech had to happen on some other date, etc. Why? If the parties needed 5 weeks to reach a solid agreement, they should have had 5 weeks - reschedule when parliament opens. Shouldn't have been a big deal to do that.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  JonCooper   21 Dec 2010 21:55 
 To:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)      15 of 20 
38033.15 In reply to 38033.13 
you think stupid kids from rich families /deserve/ a better education than smart kids from poor ones?
Jon
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Message 38033.16 deleted 23 May 2015 21:34 by 53NORTH

 From:  koswix    21 Dec 2010 22:26 
 To:  Jo (JELLS)      17 of 20 
38033.17 In reply to 38033.8 
What? Parties listening to their membership? What a terrible idea. :?

GIVE ME MEAT! :@ msg:37418.1
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)   22 Dec 2010 08:36 
 To:  JonCooper      18 of 20 
38033.18 In reply to 38033.15 

Abso-frikkin'-lutely. As long as they're not a drain on the already over-burdened Great British taxpayer, that's all that matters. I'm only thinking of you.

 

Besides, kids from rich families have a higher standard that they expect, and so need better paying jobs. Unless they expect windfall inheritances and HMG promise not to tax those too much. In which case, it's all up in the air, init?

bastard by name, bastard by nature
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  PNCOOL   22 Dec 2010 12:15 
 To:  JonCooper      19 of 20 
38033.19 In reply to 38033.15 
The poor families probably aren't going to be affected though. It's the children of the families in the middle that will suffer.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  JonCooper   22 Dec 2010 13:52 
 To:  PNCOOL      20 of 20 
38033.20 In reply to 38033.19 
that is true
Jon
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Reply to All    
 

1–20

Rate my interest:

Adjust text size : Smaller 10 Larger

Beehive Forum 1.5.2 |  FAQ |  Docs |  Support |  Donate! ©2002 - 2024 Project Beehive Forum

Forum Stats