Students at it again

[BillyStubbsTears]

VikingJames wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Actually, VJ, I'd say the opposite in terms of what today's exams are like compared to previous years.

Previously, formal exam at University level (at least in my subject of engineering) used to be set piece events that set PROBLEMS for students. That was the only chance that assessors had of appraising how good students were at solving problems.

And that was fcuking stupid. You ended up with a situation whereby the student who couldn;t see the clever trick required to work their way into the problem got zero, even if they actually knew a damn lot about the subject.

In the real world, you don't solve problems without access to other sources of knowledge. You don't have to remember everything rote fashion. You have books. You have colleagues. Nowadays, you have the internet. All sources of knowledge that might be good, bad or indifferent in quality, but which DO exist. So why assess someone in a scenario that totally isolates them from those sources?

These days, the information-gathering, problem-solving assessment is done via coursework. That is much more realistic. It gives students who are good at figuring things out given time and resources a chance. Those are the ones that we need to nurture as a country. Not nerds who can regurgitate a list of all the Kings and Queens of England since Nogbad the Bad. But coursework can be abused. So you also have a balance of hard, fact based exams. Which, if well prepared, give the poorer students a chance to show that they have a smattering of knowledge, the average student a chance to show that they can apply that knowledge to simple problems, and the very best student a chance to show that they understand the context and the limitations of the knowledge they have.

I find the \"It were better when I were a bairn\" argument laughable.

Health is better these days than it was 50 years ago.
Cars are better
Trains are better
Computers are better
Houses are better
Food is better
Tellies are better
Footballers are better
Athletes are faster

Why should education be different? Why should students be thicker and exams easier?

One reason. Because it makes inadequate old gets feel better about themselves.

Fair enough. As I said, all of my serious exams that lead to qualifications have taken and are taking place around about the present day, so I'm not really in a position to comment on what exams were like in the past.

I'd have imagined they were much more hard line sort of \"You must memorise the periodic table and then draw it out again from scratch\" type of exams, clearly I was wrong to assume that. I'm doing my second year of A levels at the minute, and 3 out of my 4 subjects require a certain level of \"not just knowing stuff but showing that you know what you're on about\" for the exam. Which involves writing out long written answers, giving both sides of an argument and then arguing the stronger side, so you can see where my point about exams evolving came from. I wouldn't say that is easier than memorising the Periodic table, or reeling off every King and Queen of England since the year dot, but, as you said, it certainly relates more to what you will encounter in your daily life than simply reeling off facts with no meaning behind them.

I'd say that exams in the old days were more sophisticated, by which I mean that there were hidden traps in them. That was the clever, clever way of finding out the REALLY bright students, but it made it hard for the pretty bright ones to shine, or at least to find their true place in the pecking order. My experience is that they were often about the EXAMINER showing what a clever t**t he was. That's why schools based their curriculum around certain exam boards - because they knew what style of question to expect.

These days, exams are more about giving an opportunity to show what the STUDENT knows. More open ended questions. Invitations to enter into discussions about a topic. It's a different style for sure, bit it doesn't mean the quality and the rigours aren't there.

[jonrover]

hoolahoop wrote:

Savvy there you go again, that 'anti-trade union legilation' as you put it was to stop 'wildcat' strikes and ffs there were plenty of them.
What you really meant to say I think is that it was 'anti we can do what we like , when we like' legislation.
Please can you explain to me what exact 'democratic rights' were taken from the Unions, were they the one's whereby they used force to disrupt this country at a drop of a hat perhaps ?
The people of this country have the right to elect folk to run this country, not an individual union to disrupt it for their own ends.

Hoolahoop, you have no clue what your on about. Have you ever been on strike? Nay, thought not.

As it happens, today is the 1st anniversary of the strike at my place of work. This was a last resort decision, not taken lightly at all, and believe me we had to jump legal hurdle after legal hurdle just to get to the point where the union was safe to lead us out to the picket line. But that didn't stop the company using scab agency labour at a rented warehouse in Derbyshire to try and undermine our action (which is illegal by the way, but because it was business, it was swept under the carpet.) Were we allowed to picket this site? Of course not, secondary picketing. They can do what they like, workers are shafted. They tried to rob £2000 a year off me, and because of the strike I saved 3/4 of that. If done correctly, which means having the cojones to go all out indefinite like we did, you win. Somehow, I doubt my company will try robbing us again. In fact, they went back and robbed some more off our other (un-organised) warehouse instead. And if that's not a lesson in the benefits in being a trade union member in an organised workplace, I don't know what is.

[MrFrost]

Savvy wrote:

MrFrost wrote:

What are they playing at? I mean seriously?

Just heard a Radio interview with one of them who thought it was Thatcher who introduced tuition fees. Clearly half of them are just jumping on the \"hate the coalition bandwagon\".

I wonder why there were no riots when Labour first introduced the fee's, despite stating in their manifesto that they wouldn't.

Labour however, can do no wrong, and we all know that.

As I recall there was protests at the introduction of fees and the general consensus has been from introduction that yes students should make a contribution towards their higher education.  The point of these protests is that they are attempting to put a university education beyond the reach of the ordinary working class lad/lass who has studied hard to meet the requirements for their particular course of study! My own opinion is that this is fundamentally wrong, and the chance of a university education should be available for all who wish to take it up! Having met the course entrance requirements of course!

If you yourself had taken the opportunity, perhaps some of these little \"unlucky Alf\" moments might not have come your way eh?  

No I didn't take the opportunity but so f*cling what pal. It was my choice and I'm proud of it.

I take it you went to uni? Tell me how much further in life it has taken you compared to someone like me who hasn't been?!

[Savvy]

Yes I did attend the University of Sunderland 94/98 and was part of the first intake into the St Peters Campus just over the Wearmouth bridge, and, like yourself, I'm proud to say I did. I'd like to think that this made some contribution to my lads decision to go to Sheffield Hallam as well.

As for how much further in life it has taken me, well I don't really know enough about you to make a comparison do I? What I will say is if you think that attending University is all about money your sadly mistaken!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Can somebody explain to me how these proposals prevent the working class from going to university as that seems to have bypassed me?  The only reason I can think of is that some have not read into what these proposals mean (because in reality they make little difference to a working class guy, if anything they make it more attractive).

FWIW, my current student debt stands at £30,186.55 and accrues interest of around 1.8% at £543.36 at that rate.  Now bear in mind that I pay 9% on ever penny over £15,000 (I don't earn that anyway so pay nothing), I'd have to earn 21,037.34 just to pay off the interest each year.  Now you tell me how I'm ever going to pay that back?  I'm not.  If as under the new scheme it was similar, well there's no chance of anyone ever paying it back unless they earn massive money.  In reality, me earning £20k would lose £450 in repayment at the moment, under the new scheme you'd lose nothing at £20,000 I fail to see how that's a bad thing?

[Savvy]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

Exams have become far easier than they used to be.

Ahh, THAT Old Git classic.

Evidence Hoola?

Do you disagree before we wade on ? It is difficult to assess exactly why it's easier but I would think that the internet assisting with course work would help for starters.
Continual assessment imo is easier than 'one off' exams.
I must admit evidence is hard to come by only a gut feeling.

Having worked as a University academic, and having seen, over a ten year period, a HUGE increase in the quality of students coming in, then yes, I would absolutely disagree. I have controlled experiment data here. I set the same exam paper every single year for 10 years - a paper that the students were not allowed to take out of the exam hall, so they couldn't pass it on to future years. The average marks went up from mid 50s to mid 60s % in a decade.

And don't only take my word for it. A letter in The Times 10 years back said it better than I could. A Professor of Education at Liverpool University who had been an undergraduate at Liverpool 30 years before. He said that he used to believe that his cohort was better than modern students - until he found some of his old exam scripts in the basement. When he realised how little HE knew as a 2o year old, he stopped carping.

But it's the prerogative of old gits to complain that the young 'uns have it easy. Always has been, always will be.

By the way, Clegg has outdone himself tonight in his mendacious hoop jumping. He said it pains him that he hasn't been able to follow through on his pre-election pledge not to raise tuition fees. But he didn't pledge not to increase tuition fees. He pledged to VOTE AGAINST ANY PROPOSALS TO INCRESE FEES. And he didn't just promise it on the quiet. He did so ostentatiously on video. As did EVERY ONE of his colleagues.

Now, it's easy to keep his promise. Vote against the proposals. Easy.

Must admit its the one thing that I find a little suspicious! Now, following the empherical rule for any set of randomly generated figures (examination results), my understanding is that they will follow a certain pattern. This pattern being 68% of the data will fall within 1 standard deviation from the x-bar, 95% of the data will fall within 2 standard deviations of the x-bar and the whole distribution will fall within 3 standard deviations of the x-bar (hence the phrase six sigma!). I'm also led to believe that 7 or more continous points above or below the x-bar should merit investigation. Applying that to the current topic and it does make you wonder if there aren't some other influences on the outcomes!

Feel free to tell me I'm talking b*llocks Bill, but thats my understanding from statistics 101.

[Savvy]

BFYP,Clearly the proposals won't stop people from attending if they are so minded, I believe the point that is being debated is that the proposed increases are going to prove to be a significant barrier to entry for alot of academcially gifted working class people!  

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Savvy wrote:

Clearly the proposals won't stop people from attending if they are so minded, I believe the point that is being debated is that the proposed increases are going to prove to be a significant barrier to entry for alot of academcially gifted working class people!  

How are they?  Explain the reasoning behind that please because I feel like I've missed something?

[donnyproletarian]

BRING BACK NATIONAL SERVICE that wiil sort them out.Teach them how to kill folk professionaly.Mind you might have to settle for the TAs due to the cutbacks.Nevermind can always slip into a high rank with dadies connections

BRING BACK THE BIRCH .Think not sounds a bit kinky , probably enjoy that having been groomed in single sex public schools.

I HAVE A CUNNING PLAN .Instead of masaging the unemployment figures by creating loads of watered down micky mouse qualifications that no one can use lets put them into to work doing old fashioned things like building houses and staffing the hospitals.You know things people need to stay alive Then they could pay taxes and help the old people and disabled not be a burden on society.Oh no sorry cant do that can we sounds to much like the S word SOCIALISM .you know that word everyone is avoiding like the plague.

I should know about this stuff .Studied Sociology in the 80s.Still skint but at least i know why ime skint

[Savvy]

Well taking your indebtedness as an illustration, if that has arisen from annual fees of 3k per academic year, whats that going to do for someone who has to pay up to 9k per year?  

[MrFrost]

Savvy wrote:

Yes I did attend the University of Sunderland 94/98 and was part of the first intake into the St Peters Campus just over the Wearmouth bridge, and, like yourself, I'm proud to say I did. I'd like to think that this made some contribution to my lads decision to go to Sheffield Hallam as well.

As for how much further in life it has taken me, well I don't really know enough about you to make a comparison do I? What I will say is if you think that attending University is all about money your sadly mistaken!

Where did I imply it is about making money?

I'd like to know how you think me attending uni would have prevented the \"unlucky Alf\" comments.

I didn't go to uni as I thought it was a completely pointless exercise. And i'm happy to say that it was the right decision.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Savvy wrote:

Well taking your indebtedness as an illustration, if that has arisen from annual fees of 3k per academic year, whats that going to do for someone who has to pay up to 9k per year?  

It will make it higher, but as I've said unless you're earning huge money as it is you'll never pay it back, for someone who goes on to earn less than 30k, the difference between 3k a year or 9k a year is nominal.

The biggest barrier to university for people from working class backgrounds is the high cost of living/student accomodation provided by unis and the basic aspect that students are expected to live off roughly £90 a week over a year - yet they expect students not to have jobs - crazy.

[Savvy]

MrFrost wrote:

Savvy wrote:

Yes I did attend the University of Sunderland 94/98 and was part of the first intake into the St Peters Campus just over the Wearmouth bridge, and, like yourself, I'm proud to say I did. I'd like to think that this made some contribution to my lads decision to go to Sheffield Hallam as well.

As for how much further in life it has taken me, well I don't really know enough about you to make a comparison do I? What I will say is if you think that attending University is all about money your sadly mistaken!

Where did I imply it is about making money?

I'd like to know how you think me attending uni would have prevented the \"unlucky Alf\" comments.

I didn't go to uni as I thought it was a completely pointless exercise. And i'm happy to say that it was the right decision.

Nobody said that you implied that it was all about money, if you look back through the thread you'll see that you asked me to compare and contrast yourself with someone who had been at University. I commented that I didnt know enough about you to make a comparison but had you have studied at a University, you might have changed the last part of your post to \"In my opinion was the right decision\" rather than making a sweeping generalisation that it was a completely pointless exercise without evidence to back it up!

quite ironically, perhaps I should be charging you as a tax payer for this pro bono advice?

[Sif]

Boomstick wrote:

Your absolutely spot on Mr Frost.
Why should hard working people, e.g. tradesmen who didnt go to uni pay higher taxes for incoherent chavs to do tourism studies at hull uni?
Uni should be for the top 20% intelectually gifted kids to do worthwhile studies like chemistry, engineering, biology etc. Thats where tax payers money should go, to the kids that will do degrees that are actually worth something and will ultimately improve and contribute to society later on.

Not everyone should or can go to uni, it is not a right either. You have to be clever enough. The last government cheapened degrees so much its unreal, I mean some of the kids that are going to uni nowadays are calling themselves students, but are infact not even fit to work in Greggs. They are a drain on society, time to sort it.

Wow. I can't remember the last time i saw a comment as ignorant as this.

I worked from the age of 17, and i don't have kids. Why should my taxes go towards child tax credits for those that do? Why should your taxes go towards paying for the further education of students? Why should everyone pay taxes to give 16 year old kids money to attend college? because that my friend is what defines a society.

The implication of the student loan increase limits people who want vocational careers, and produces a generation of people who feel that the only purpose a university education is to earn money. It effectively rids campus' of intellectuals, artists & conscientious thinkers. Because i've chosen to study History, i've been labelled as taking a 'luxury' degree. The cuts to the teaching budget for arts and humanities sends a clear message that the government attaches no intrinsic value to a history degree, and although it's clichéd to say it, you understand the modern world through its echoes of the past.

Now clearly, people don't go into teaching for the money. And there is certainly not a huge financial future in studying contemporary History, art, poetry or ancient literature, but the trickledown effect is that this knowledge enriches our culture and the people in it.

Education is a right. It should be available to anyone who wants it. I myself failed miserably at school. I wasn't the brightest, but i certainly wasn't dumbest. I simply failed to grasp the importance of a scholastic grounding. At the age of 28, after serving in the forces and working in call centres, i decided that i wanted to study, i needed to study. I felt the need to challenge myself, and to see if i had the potential to become something more than a working class kid who wasted 6 years of his life answering phone calls.

As Mike F pointed out in another thread, thirst for knowledge grows the older you get. Who are you to determine who is clever enough for university? And what degrees are deemed worthwhile? I won't know how clever, or not, i am until i finish my studies. If i were under 25, my GCSE grades wouldn't have enabled me to get on any course in the country, but as a mature student i could rely on life experience. I was invited to an interview, asked to submit a sample essay, and subsequently received a grade of 78%, which i'm happy to say would be more than enough to see me earn a first class degree.

I currently have work two jobs in addition to attending University. I have rent, credit cards, car loans, insurance, phone bills & utility bills to take care of, in addition to the £65 a week i have to spend in fuel just to cover my travelling costs. I wouldn't class myself as a drain on society, and fcuk you for even insinuating that some students are.

[bobjimwilly]

Sif wrote:

Boomstick wrote:

Your absolutely spot on Mr Frost.
Why should hard working people, e.g. tradesmen who didnt go to uni pay higher taxes for incoherent chavs to do tourism studies at hull uni?
Uni should be for the top 20% intelectually gifted kids to do worthwhile studies like chemistry, engineering, biology etc. Thats where tax payers money should go, to the kids that will do degrees that are actually worth something and will ultimately improve and contribute to society later on.

Not everyone should or can go to uni, it is not a right either. You have to be clever enough. The last government cheapened degrees so much its unreal, I mean some of the kids that are going to uni nowadays are calling themselves students, but are infact not even fit to work in Greggs. They are a drain on society, time to sort it.

Wow. I can't remember the last time i saw a comment as ignorant as this.

I worked from the age of 17, and i don't have kids. Why should my taxes go towards child tax credits for those that do? Why should your taxes go towards paying for the further education of students? Why should everyone pay taxes to give 16 year old kids money to attend college? because that my friend is what defines a society.

The implication of the student loan increase limits people who want vocational careers, and produces a generation of people who feel that the only purpose a university education is to earn money. It effectively rids campus' of intellectuals, artists & conscientious thinkers. Because i've chosen to study History, i've been labelled as taking a 'luxury' degree. The cuts to the teaching budget for arts and humanities sends a clear message that the government attaches no intrinsic value to a history degree, and although it's clichéd to say it, you understand the modern world through its echoes of the past.

Now clearly, people don't go into teaching for the money. And there is certainly not a huge financial future in studying contemporary History, art, poetry or ancient literature, but the trickledown effect is that this knowledge enriches our culture and the people in it.

Education is a right. It should be available to anyone who wants it. I myself failed miserably at school. I wasn't the brightest, but i certainly wasn't dumbest. I simply failed to grasp the importance of a scholastic grounding. At the age of 28, after serving in the forces and working in call centres, i decided that i wanted to study, i needed to study. I felt the need to challenge myself, and to see if i had the potential to become something more than a working class kid who wasted 6 years of his life answering phone calls.

As Mike F pointed out in another thread, thirst for knowledge grows the older you get. Who are you to determine who is clever enough for university? And what degrees are deemed worthwhile? I won't know how clever, or not, i am until i finish my studies. If i were under 25, my GCSE grades wouldn't have enabled me to get on any course in the country, but as a mature student i could rely on life experience. I was invited to an interview, asked to submit a sample essay, and subsequently received a grade of 78%, which i'm happy to say would be more than enough to see me earn a first class degree.

I currently have work two jobs in addition to attending University. I have rent, credit cards, car loans, insurance, phone bills & utility bills to take care of, in addition to the £65 a week i have to spend in fuel just to cover my travelling costs. I wouldn't class myself as a drain on society, and fcuk you for even insinuating that some students are.

Excellent reply Sif.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm healthy so don't very often use the NHS. Why should my taxes pay for that?

I'm not infirm and incontinent, so I don't need a care assistant to come and look after me. Why should my taxes pay for that?

My house didn't burn down last night. Why should my taxes pay for the Fire Brigade?


By the way, I see the \"We're all in it together\" argument has been shown in its true colours yesterday with Pickles's council funding deal.

The mainly Tory Shire counties have averaged 1.8% reduction in Government grant. The mainly Labour Metropoltian counties have averaged 6.7% cuts. Donny is taking a 9.6% hit...

In other words, the richest and best able to provide their own services have been looked after, and the poorest have been told to fcuk off.

Just like always when these cnuts are in power, it is unashamed Class War.

[Filo]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

By the way, I see the \"We're all in it together\" argument has been shown in its true colours yesterday with Pickles's council funding deal.

The mainly Tory Shire counties have averaged 1.8% reduction in Government grant. The mainly Labour Metropoltian counties have averaged 6.7% cuts. Donny is taking a 9.6% hit...

In other words, the richest and best able to provide their own services have been looked after, and the poorest have been told to fcuk off.

Just like always when these cnuts are in power, it is unashamed Class War.

I see that a cross party committee of MP`s have revealed that the Forgemasters loan was any easy target to axe and contrary to \"lier\" Cleggs claim that the money was n`t there for the loan, it actually was. It looks to me like this coalition`s only agenda is to attack anything that the previous government put in place, regardless of the consequences!

Forgemasters Loan could be afforded, another lie by pinochio Clegg!

[BobG]

When the Govt announced that it chipping in a commitment to the odd billion or two to bail out the Irish, I have to admit I was forcibly reminded of the alleged 'impossibility' of supporting Forgemasters. Summat not quite right there isn't there? Now I wonder what it might be......?

Welcome back Sif. Missed you mate. If you're into History, or History and Politics, drop me a mail or a PM. I have quite a lot of knowledge, experience and resources.

By the by, have you noticed who it is that makes the kind of comments discussed? There's a bit of a pattern isn't there?!

Cheers

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way, just to show how fcuking nasty Pickles's cuts are, and the way in which he has loaded them on the poorest areas, take a look at the graphs on this site.

EDIT: HERE is the link

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/12/eric-pickles-cuts-target-britains-poorest-areas/

Admittedly, the site is an unabashedly left-wing one, but the data is kosher. The \"Deprivation Index\" is a measure of social problems that local authorities have, worked out by the Govt. Basically, the higher the figure, the more deprived an area is. So, the graphs show categorically that the better-off areas are being cushioned, and the poorest (like Donny) are being hammered.

Same old fcuking Tories...

[BobG]

You know as well as I do Billy that the art of politics is to satisfy your own constituency within the overall electorate. The Tories have ever been past masters at that. They're doing now exactly what they need to do to win the next election as well. And when the riots come, they'll be able to point at all those nasty, brutish worker people and tell their own wonderful constituency that they must vote Tory again to stop more of the same. What galls is the stupidity of 60% of the voting population who either cannot see what is being done in their name, or, who actually don't care.

Yes. The Tories are mean, vindictive and vicious. But equally yes, they're doing the right thing from their own pov and we are being led by the nose by our own ignorance and a right wing press full of the very same vested interest.

As I keep on saying mate, bring out the guns.

BobG

[MrFrost]

BobG wrote:

You know as well as I do Billy that the art of politics is to satisfy your own constituency within the overall electorate. The Tories have ever been past masters at that. They're doing now exactly what they need to do to win the next election as well. And when the riots come, they'll be able to point at all those nasty, brutish worker people and tell their own wonderful constituency that they must vote Tory again to stop more of the same. What galls is the stupidity of 60% of the voting population who either cannot see what is being done in their name, or, who actually don't care.

Yes. The Tories are mean, vindictive and vicious. But equally yes, they're doing the right thing from their own pov and we are being led by the nose by our own ignorance and a right wing press full of the very same vested interest.

As I keep on saying mate, bring out the guns.

BobG

Talking the talk again I see Bob. Why don't you do something about it and act on your comments, rather than moaning about the Tories?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BobG wrote:

You know as well as I do Billy that the art of politics is to satisfy your own constituency within the overall electorate. The Tories have ever been past masters at that. They're doing now exactly what they need to do to win the next election as well. And when the riots come, they'll be able to point at all those nasty, brutish worker people and tell their own wonderful constituency that they must vote Tory again to stop more of the same. What galls is the stupidity of 60% of the voting population who either cannot see what is being done in their name, or, who actually don't care.

Yes. The Tories are mean, vindictive and vicious. But equally yes, they're doing the right thing from their own pov and we are being led by the nose by our own ignorance and a right wing press full of the very same vested interest.

As I keep on saying mate, bring out the guns.

BobG

Arthur Scargill was an unmitigated disaster as NUM President, but he did have the  insight of a true Class Warrior, and he knew that THAT was how the other side played the game. He once said, \"If the Labour Party had done as much for the working man when they were in power as the Tories had done for the rich when THEY were in power, there'd be no need for me.\"

Never a truer word spoken.

[BobG]

Didn't know that quote. Thanks. I always did think Scargill was an utter madman - but he hit the nail right bang on the head there.

BobG

[hoolahoop]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

BobG wrote:

You know as well as I do Billy that the art of politics is to satisfy your own constituency within the overall electorate. The Tories have ever been past masters at that. They're doing now exactly what they need to do to win the next election as well. And when the riots come, they'll be able to point at all those nasty, brutish worker people and tell their own wonderful constituency that they must vote Tory again to stop more of the same. What galls is the stupidity of 60% of the voting population who either cannot see what is being done in their name, or, who actually don't care.

Yes. The Tories are mean, vindictive and vicious. But equally yes, they're doing the right thing from their own pov and we are being led by the nose by our own ignorance and a right wing press full of the very same vested interest.

As I keep on saying mate, bring out the guns.

BobG

Arthur Scargill was an unmitigated disaster as NUM President, but he did have the  insight of a true Class Warrior, and he knew that THAT was how the other side played the game. He once said, \"If the Labour Party had done as much for the working man when they were in power as the Tories had done for the rich when THEY were in power, there'd be no need for me.\"

Never a truer word spoken.

That has to be one of the funniest statements you have ever made ........oh the irony. A man who had no scruples, understood little about democratic procedures and basically like a latterday Lord Cardigan at Balaclava sent the poor miners headlong into the cannons. Class warrior indeed. ROFLMAO.
This class war btw is presumably all one sided is it ? The truly democratic Labour Party has never changed laws , constituency boundaries etc to suit their agendas?

[BobG]

Hang on Hoola! You're allowing emotion to get in the way of debate. Billy has already said Scargill was a disaster. Nobody is on here defending the bloke. Or his methods. The point is his insight. And in that, despite my loathing for the chap, I don't think anyone could construct even a half way credible case. What's that got to do with Balaclava or constituency boundaries? If you want to debate the political behaviour of the Labour Party, go ahead. But it's not relevant at all to the point under discussion. Start a new thread.

Cheers

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

hoolahoop wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

BobG wrote:

You know as well as I do Billy that the art of politics is to satisfy your own constituency within the overall electorate. The Tories have ever been past masters at that. They're doing now exactly what they need to do to win the next election as well. And when the riots come, they'll be able to point at all those nasty, brutish worker people and tell their own wonderful constituency that they must vote Tory again to stop more of the same. What galls is the stupidity of 60% of the voting population who either cannot see what is being done in their name, or, who actually don't care.

Yes. The Tories are mean, vindictive and vicious. But equally yes, they're doing the right thing from their own pov and we are being led by the nose by our own ignorance and a right wing press full of the very same vested interest.

As I keep on saying mate, bring out the guns.

BobG

Arthur Scargill was an unmitigated disaster as NUM President, but he did have the  insight of a true Class Warrior, and he knew that THAT was how the other side played the game. He once said, \"If the Labour Party had done as much for the working man when they were in power as the Tories had done for the rich when THEY were in power, there'd be no need for me.\"

Never a truer word spoken.

That has to be one of the funniest statements you have ever made ........oh the irony. A man who had no scruples, understood little about democratic procedures and basically like a latterday Lord Cardigan at Balaclava sent the poor miners headlong into the cannons. Class warrior indeed. ROFLMAO.
This class war btw is presumably all one sided is it ? The truly democratic Labour Party has never changed laws , constituency boundaries etc to suit their agendas?

Of course he was a Class Warrior. He just wasn't very good at winning the war...

If you stopped for a moment to think about what I was saying, I meant that HE understood that there WAS a class war, and that the Tories have always waged it viciously and without reserve.

The Labour Party, by comparison, are pacifists. Think about how tentative Blair and Brown were back in 97. Guaranteeing that they wouldn't put up Income Tax. Sticking to the Tories' spending plans, to the extent that, by 2001, we were spending and taxing about 10% less than even under Thatcher. THAT is how timid the Labour Party is.

By contrast, the Tories have never flinched at unleashing their economic policies on the very poorest and weakest as soon as they take power.

So, when you've finished rolling about the floor, go have a look at them graphs and tell me how the Lib Dems have softened THAT particular Tory policy Hoola.

[hoolahoop]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

BobG wrote:

You know as well as I do Billy that the art of politics is to satisfy your own constituency within the overall electorate. The Tories have ever been past masters at that. They're doing now exactly what they need to do to win the next election as well. And when the riots come, they'll be able to point at all those nasty, brutish worker people and tell their own wonderful constituency that they must vote Tory again to stop more of the same. What galls is the stupidity of 60% of the voting population who either cannot see what is being done in their name, or, who actually don't care.

Yes. The Tories are mean, vindictive and vicious. But equally yes, they're doing the right thing from their own pov and we are being led by the nose by our own ignorance and a right wing press full of the very same vested interest.

As I keep on saying mate, bring out the guns.

BobG

Arthur Scargill was an unmitigated disaster as NUM President, but he did have the  insight of a true Class Warrior, and he knew that THAT was how the other side played the game. He once said, \"If the Labour Party had done as much for the working man when they were in power as the Tories had done for the rich when THEY were in power, there'd be no need for me.\"

Never a truer word spoken.

That has to be one of the funniest statements you have ever made ........oh the irony. A man who had no scruples, understood little about democratic procedures and basically like a latterday Lord Cardigan at Balaclava sent the poor miners headlong into the cannons. Class warrior indeed. ROFLMAO.
This class war btw is presumably all one sided is it ? The truly democratic Labour Party has never changed laws , constituency boundaries etc to suit their agendas?

Of course he was a Class Warrior. He just wasn't very good at winning the war...

If you stopped for a moment to think about what I was saying, I meant that HE understood that there WAS a class war, and that the Tories have always waged it viciously and without reserve.

The Labour Party, by comparison, are pacifists. Think about how tentative Blair and Brown were back in 97. Guaranteeing that they wouldn't put up Income Tax. Sticking to the Tories' spending plans, to the extent that, by 2001, we were spending and taxing about 10% less than even under Thatcher. THAT is how timid the Labour Party is.

By contrast, the Tories have never flinched at unleashing their economic policies on the very poorest and weakest as soon as they take power.

So, when you've finished rolling about the floor, go have a look at them graphs and tell me how the Lib Dems have softened THAT particular Tory policy Hoola.

He didn't have the ''insight'' of a true class warrior and yes I'm still laughing the man was an ignoramus.
They were taxing less than under Thatcher for political reasons and to make themselves more electable and it worked.
These same pacifists took us to a ridiculous and extremely damaging war in Iraq ; I take it that your comment was somewhat tongue in cheek. However it may well be the case that those policies from '97 onwards suited both the health of the economy and how they were perceived by the public.
I don't believe like others that Labour caused all of this masiive financial mess, however they were partially to blame and by their own admission slow to respond. I realise that this sort of accusation against Brown in particular is 'fashionable' and obviously he has had to some extent taken more criticism than he deserved.

I was wondering however what you would expect or perhaps expected from a less 'timid' Labour Party ?

Sorry I haven't addressed your final question, the short answer is I don't frankly know as I don't know what the Tory agenda is/was and neither do you this early in the Parliament. However I firmly believe that Clegg is determined to make the Coalition work and unfortunately put himself between a rock and a hard place unnecessarily before the election.

Making yourself attractive to groups of voters is not a new phenomenon, this has been done by ALL parties in the past whether it be pensioners, non-whites or students without the pledges being fulfilled. Stop trying to make Clegg into a 'one off' when it comes to reneging on promises.........they all do it, always have and funnily enough whether we like it or not always will.

[MrFrost]

Now, all that is becoming clear to me is that Bob and BST are becoming alienated on this forum as a pair of baboons.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Since the Tories came to power this year, they have implemented the following policies which discriminate particularly against the poorer folk and areas in the country.

1) VAT increase.
2) Removal for EMAs from 6th form kids
3) Deeply skewed council funding
4) Massive increases in tuition fees

And that's just 4.

Now. Imagine if, within 6 months of coming to power, a far-left Labour Govt implemented the following (roughly equal) policies.

1) Increased top rate tax by 10%
2) Charged kids from upper middle class families £30 a week to go to 6th Form
3) Gave huge subsidies to Inner City councils and slashed the funding to the Shires.
4) Increased income tax by 3% to provide free University education to all kids from families earning less than £20k.

Can you begin to contemplate the explosion from the Tory press? Can you? And THAT is why (1945 apart) Labour have always been so timid when coming to power. The Tories are cheered from the rooftops when they wage Class War - Labour have to spend a decade or more making slow changes to try to change the balance of society.

In the first ten years in power, Labour increased Govt spending as a proportion of GDP by about 2%. By 2007, the Labour Govt was spending about the same proportion of national welath as John Major in 1996 and Harold MacMillan in 1960.

Slowly, slowly, slowly, they dragged us away from the vicious ideology of the 80s and 90s, reversing the damage done by rampant Thatcherism. This increase in public spending paid for an NHS improved beyond recognition, better schools, better railways and massively improved town centres across the country. And the Tories howled that it was irresponsible and profligate. (You argue the same Hoola, although I suspect you haven't looked at the numbers. So does Mr Frost, although he has but the most tenuous grasp on logic and facts, so we don't expect any better there - maybe he should have gone to University.)

Labour tiptoed.

The Tories, with support from your lot, are planning to reduce Govt spending by about 5% in the next 5 years. In other words they are going in their direction FIVE TIMES FASTER than Labour moved us leftwards. THAT is what I mean about the way in which the Tories implement their policies gung-ho. And they know that they can do so with barely a peep of complaint from the Press.

[MrFrost]

What about what the coalition have cut?
Small business rates for a start, which in my opinion is excellent.