Labour Conference....total maddness or even possable ?
Discussion
James_B said:
jsf said:
How old are you?
He doesn’t seem too sharp, whatever age.Conflating going to Oxford with being posh, and assuming that his firm is representative of the wider jobs market is not the sort of thing you expect from someone so keen to tell everyone how very clever he is.
I’m in the fortunate position of employing a higher quality of graduate than his firm does, and they really aren’t posh on the whole, they are just bright, driven, and keen.
citizensm1th said:
alfie2244 said:
citizensm1th said:
James_B said:
I’m in the fortunate position of employing a higher quality of graduate than his firm does, and they really aren’t posh on the whole, they are just bright, driven, and keen.
So are you saying as a farmer you attract a higher quality of graduate than a london barristers chambersone way or another something smells fishy in Denmark
bloody lethal
TheChampers said:
Tuna said:
Breadvan72 said:
Entry to all professions has once again become the preserve of the posh. When I became a lawyer from a non posh background in the 80s, the law was white and male and posh. Then it became less white, less male, and less posh. Nowadays it is male and female, white and a bit brown (but not black) but is getting posh again. This is because of training costs and Bank of Mum and Dad. You have to go to a good university and then be able to do some postgrad training. Things are even worse in the media, where you have to do long internships. Medicine too is reverting to posh.
Most of the young people that apply to my chambers are super bright and very fabulous and also, in general, middle to upper middle class. ...
Out of interest, what is the average age of people applying to your chambers?Most of the young people that apply to my chambers are super bright and very fabulous and also, in general, middle to upper middle class. ...
youngsters (some with first class degrees) as paralegals, with student loan debts, on less than 20k pa. One of my busiest clients got a first in law from a Russell Group university and a masters from Cambridge. He couldn't get a trainee contract with a firm of solicitors (masters was 2010) or pupillage. Blair takes a lot of responsibility here imo for too many going to University leading to over supply.
Edited by TheChampers on Tuesday 26th September 23:04
It was a Labour government that introduced the Direct Grant Grammar Schools (Cessation of Grant) Regulations 1975 that changed the game for people from a working class background, huge mistake.
Politics trumped what the country needed from its education institutions, everyone isn't the same and don't have the same ability to learn at the same pace, the comprehensives and lack of selective education at the time were a hindrance to everyone. I've no idea how the current systems work, hopefully they have far better streaming of student abilities, if not then there is no surprise why kids find it hard to move up the ladder via education.
I don't consider the high percentage of students going to university as a success story in itself, what matters is the quality of the education and how fit for purpose it is for the nation and the individual.
People who bang on about grammar schools rarely mention secondary moderns. I went to a comprehensive school and it didn't hold me back, and it was at least possible for the kids in the lower sets who had not been doing all that well at eleven to flourish and do better later. I had a friend who moved up from the bottom set to the top one over a couple of years. That was rare, but not unheard of. He would probably have been dumped into a secondary modern if the borough had not gone to comprehensive schooling by 1974.
I received a better and even slightly more classical education than some people I know who were at middling private schools at that time. That was in the 70s, before the underfunding of state education of the Thatcher years, and the flight of many middle class parents to an expanded and improved private education sector. It remains pretty scandalous that no Government of either party has been able to deliver consistency in state education. It is very good in some places, dire in others.
I received a better and even slightly more classical education than some people I know who were at middling private schools at that time. That was in the 70s, before the underfunding of state education of the Thatcher years, and the flight of many middle class parents to an expanded and improved private education sector. It remains pretty scandalous that no Government of either party has been able to deliver consistency in state education. It is very good in some places, dire in others.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 26th September 23:49
desolate said:
To be fair, I have had a look at the people at your place and they do all come across a bit "polytechnic", don't they.
Maybe James thought the same?
I claim bragging rights because I did actually do the lawyer crash course for non law graduates at a Poly (strictly speaking it was THE Poly). It cost £500 quid. The same course at City University (the only other place offering it in 1984) was £1,000, so the Poly was a fine choice, and we could pretend to be gritty and down with the kids. I think that those courses, which are more widely available, cost 15K to 18K now. There was then only one place where you could do the Bar course, which cost about £1500. Now there are lots of places, but they are mucho spenner. Maybe James thought the same?
Breadvan72 said:
People who bang on about grammar schools rarely mention secondary moderns. I went to a comprehensive school and it didn't hold me back, and it was at least possible for the kids in the lower sets who had not been doing all that well at eleven to flourish and do better later. I had a friend who moved up from the bottom set to the top one over a couple of years. That was are, but not unheard of. He would probably have been dumped into a secondary modern if the borough had not gone to comprehensive schooling by 1974.
I received a better and even slightly more classical education than some people I know who were at middling private schools at that time. That was in the 70s, before the underfunding of state education of the Thatcher years, and the flight of many middle class parents to an expanded and improved private education sector. It remains pretty scandalous that no Government of either party has been able to deliver consistency in state education. It is very good in some places, dire in others.
You were very fortunate then. Where was it you went to school? One of the major hazards I faced at school, apart from the mind numbing boredom, was coping with nuns of the Nazi persuasion when I was a newly converted atheist. I received a better and even slightly more classical education than some people I know who were at middling private schools at that time. That was in the 70s, before the underfunding of state education of the Thatcher years, and the flight of many middle class parents to an expanded and improved private education sector. It remains pretty scandalous that no Government of either party has been able to deliver consistency in state education. It is very good in some places, dire in others.
Breadvan72 said:
I claim bragging rights because I did actually do the lawyer crash course for non law graduates at a Poly (strictly speaking it was THE Poly). It cost £500 quid. The same course at City University (the only other place offering it in 1984) was £1,000, so the Poly was a fine choice, and we could pretend to be gritty and down with the kids. I think that those courses, which are more widely available, cost 15K to 18K now. There was then only one place where you could do the Bar course, which cost about £1500. Now there are lots of places, but they are mucho spenner.
That's nowt - they had to turn my institution into a University WHILST I WAS THERE to recognise the intellect my cohort brought to that particular part of South LondonBreadvan72 said:
Well, gosh, you must be super lucky to get candidates better than people who tend to have Oxbridge firsts and postgrad qualifications from Ivy League colleges, Rhodes Scholarships, Fellowships of All Souls and all that tat. We have to rough it with duds of that sort. By the way, it's not a firm, and no one gets employed, but if you knew anything about the legal sector, you would know that. The pattern of recruiting varies, but at the top end of the legal market (which unless you have a strong vocation or a private income or both may be the only end worth the significant effort and cost of joining), the background of the candidates is as I describe it. My point is that this has changed - things have gone backwards after some forward movement. There was wider access in the 80s and 90s. For example, I am not posh, I went to Oxford, and I didn't have Bank of Mum and Dad, but nowadays it is harder for people without Bank of Mum and Dad to slog through the entry processes in some graduate jobs. I do not conflate Oxford with posh, and my own college and some others still do their best to bring in students from all sorts of backgrounds, but the applicants that my chambers sees are more uniformly middle class than they were a few years ago, when we saw more people from more socially diverse backgrounds. Slowing of social mobility is one of the bad things of the last few decades.
Mrs fblm, then Miss, joined a commercial set just round the corner from your gaff around 2000ish. Her school was so posh by the time she matriculated it had been permanently shut down after failing every inspection for years, luckily Inner Temple picked up her Bar School tab otherwise it would have swallowed my Cerbera fund. Back then the QC's were very posh but the juniors were all pretty normal. I'm surprised you say it's reverting with the unaffected juniors now largely running the show. P.S. Cambridge is now an eclectic 62% state school while your lot are still a bunch of fox hunting hoorays at a miserable 59%, in the 80's both were 20% lower, significant progress no?Gah! It's this sort of thread I promised myself I'd ignore when I came back but Lord above there is some tosh being spoken on here! Much of it being said by folks who if they are as bright as they claimed should either have the brains or common sense to spot the potholes before stepping in them!
I have no idea who the best and brightest in the country work for these days but in the 3months since I came back to the country I have noticed that it appears considerably dafter than when I left it!
I have no idea who the best and brightest in the country work for these days but in the 3months since I came back to the country I have noticed that it appears considerably dafter than when I left it!
citizensm1th said:
James_B said:
jsf said:
How old are you?
He doesn’t seem too sharp, whatever age.Conflating going to Oxford with being posh, and assuming that his firm is representative of the wider jobs market is not the sort of thing you expect from someone so keen to tell everyone how very clever he is.
I’m in the fortunate position of employing a higher quality of graduate than his firm does, and they really aren’t posh on the whole, they are just bright, driven, and keen.
Breadvan72 said:
I claim bragging rights because I did actually do the lawyer crash course for non law graduates at a Poly (strictly speaking it was THE Poly). It cost £500 quid. The same course at City University (the only other place offering it in 1984) was £1,000, so the Poly was a fine choice, and we could pretend to be gritty and down with the kids. I think that those courses, which are more widely available, cost 15K to 18K now. There was then only one place where you could do the Bar course, which cost about £1500. Now there are lots of places, but they are mucho spenner.
It would be interesting to try and figure out how much your £500 course from 1984 would cost today purely on natural inflation.According to the BofE inflation calculator, it would've tripled to around £1,500 by now, but that's based on the CPI, so given the massive drop in prices for consumer electronics and the like, is probably pretty meaningless.
I have no idea whether an increase from £1,000 to £15,000 over 35 years is within normal range or not? Having said that, a quick google suggests conversion courses start around the £8k mark, so presumably only the top end ones are up at that level?
Smiler. said:
Is there any point in posting that Thornbury seemed to suggest on R4 yesterday that the way to Government was to bribe the young & the old voters.
Nothing new there, just surprised at her candour.
She was literally laughing out loud at her own jokes the other day on R4 (Monday) about Boris. Nothing new there, just surprised at her candour.
Generally speaking you'd spend a bit of time discussing the strategy your competition is following but then focus what ambition you have and what milestones we need to achieve to get there.
Smiler. said:
Is there any point in posting that Thornbury seemed to suggest on R4 yesterday that the way to Government was to bribe the young & the old voters.
Nothing new there, just surprised at her candour.
It didn't work with Steptoe's astronomical levels of bribery - is it that surefire?Nothing new there, just surprised at her candour.
Nothing new in Corb's delusion as per radio news coverage of his planned input at Conference today, where he will suggest with a straight face that his far-left coterie of revolutionary incompetents is a government in waiting, that Labour is ready for office (but not fit for office in any case) and that - helpful as ever to the Conservatives, he will advise that they get their act together...lessons in ethical politics from Momentum will be available presumably - and that if the Tories don't get their act together they should stand aside. Anyone would think his mob came close to winning the GE rather than failing badly.
He's forgotten the flattering
headlines after he lost: "Blair aide: Labour lost an easily winnable fight", also for his strategists to mull over "Corbyn secured a similar vote share to Tony Blair in 2001 but won 151 fewer seats in worst performance (seats/votes) for nearly 70 years" and "excited by losing the election less badly than predicted, Labour is struggling to restrain its arrogant Marxist tendencies".Those arrogant Marxist tendencies are on view today.
I heard Angela Rayner rattling on whilst listening to Radio 5 today.
She was talking about Labour's pre-school policy and had no answer when asked (several times too) 'How much is this going to cost?' apart from saying 'It's all in the manifesto'.
Surely if you're know you're going to talk about a policy and costings you would have that information to hand?
Just embarrassing.
She was talking about Labour's pre-school policy and had no answer when asked (several times too) 'How much is this going to cost?' apart from saying 'It's all in the manifesto'.
Surely if you're know you're going to talk about a policy and costings you would have that information to hand?
Just embarrassing.
BigMon said:
I heard Angela Rayner rattling on whilst listening to Radio 5 today.
She was talking about Labour's pre-school policy and had no answer when asked (several times too) 'How much is this going to cost?' apart from saying 'It's all in the manifesto'.
Surely if you're know you're going to talk about a policy and costings you would have that information to hand?
Just embarrassing.
Did it sound like a deleted scene from Coronation St?She was talking about Labour's pre-school policy and had no answer when asked (several times too) 'How much is this going to cost?' apart from saying 'It's all in the manifesto'.
Surely if you're know you're going to talk about a policy and costings you would have that information to hand?
Just embarrassing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff