London Protests (riot) this weekend....
Discussion
Trommel said:
Has there ever been an Architecture A-Level? Is Greek & Roman literature Classics? Or did you take them in 1951 or something?
Classical studies incorporates all I listed, inc. a trip out to Athens and Olympia to study the architecture of the Acropolis and what remains of the temples at Olympia, which is why I can happily waxlyrical about Doric, Ionic and Corinthian columns, the scenes in high and low relief around the Parthenon and Pericles. Im more than happy to admit it fascinated me when I was younger and remains an interest, no matter how old fashioned it may seem.1994 not 1951 Im afraid and I turned down Oxbridge.
I will usually play the role of thick northern scum and play down high fallutin educashun, but Ill happily defend classics, it remains the subject Ive studied I look back on most fondly and I see no reason why I should have to let some retired plod think he knows better and piss all over it. Thoroughly enjoyed the subject and no it has nothing to do with being a 17yr old lad and given free run of the bar in some Greek hotel
paddyhasneeds said:
How did we cope before EMA?
I had to get a job, a bar job no less - paying about £80 a week.Recently, I knew a couple of 'students' in receipt of EMA who openly called it "getting paid" and the day after "payday" they were skint, but had an ounce of weed for the week.
My £80 was to keep food in my stomach and the odd pint or two with friends. This handouts mentality pisses me right off, people should actively be taught self-reliance not state-reliance.
(I understand it was a rhetorical question, btw)
A question. The protests are talking about the danger of education cuts, but at the same time, demonising those educated enough to be tax accountants able to advise equally clever business directors. Is the message therefore "education is good, as long as it's in something we like, otherwise you're all Tory scum"? Seems to be.
hornet said:
A question. The protests are talking about the danger of education cuts, but at the same time, demonising those educated enough to be tax accountants able to advise equally clever business directors. Is the message therefore "education is good, as long as it's in something we like, otherwise you're all Tory scum"? Seems to be.
Back of the net.Mr Happy said:
paddyhasneeds said:
How did we cope before EMA?
I had to get a job, a bar job no less - paying about £80 a week.Recently, I knew a couple of 'students' in receipt of EMA who openly called it "getting paid" and the day after "payday" they were skint, but had an ounce of weed for the week.
My £80 was to keep food in my stomach and the odd pint or two with friends. This handouts mentality pisses me right off, people should actively be taught self-reliance not state-reliance.
(I understand it was a rhetorical question, btw)
I find it surprising that such a large % of student population come from homes on the limit of poverty.
Derek Smith said:
We should not be giving massive subsidies to Oxbridge and the LSE, which is what we are doing now, but to the science based unis.
Indeed, waste of money that there Cavendish, where my late FIL gained his Physics PhD, pre WW11, when Rutherford was there.The great man was a real stickler, my FIL told me.
munky said:
bosscerbera said:
Winston's/Maggie's one-liners are both correct. Hurrah. But the problem with capitalism or, to be precise, the peculiar strain of free market capitalism in major English-speaking economies, is that it does not actually provide the "poor sod at the bottom" with anything to do. Which gives a crude insight into the perception of Tories making money and Socialists giving it away.
Today's problems are that so much money - not even "our money" anymore - has been given away, and so many people have nothing to do, that the wheels have well and truly come off the wagon.
As I see it, it's more that too often the poor sod at the bottom can't be arsed (sorry, couldn't resist) to do anything, even when there is plenty to do. Too often native Brits of the uneducated variety would rather be on the dole than take a job cleaning or serving hot drinks at a coffee emporium. Therefore, your cleaner or barista is likely to be of eastern european extraction, because there are plenty of them with a good work ethic. They wouldn't have travelled all this way and been followed by their friends if those vacancies did not exist, but they do exist because too many of our countrymen would rather watch Trisha and play x-box at our expense, and our elected representatives have been too willing to allow them.Today's problems are that so much money - not even "our money" anymore - has been given away, and so many people have nothing to do, that the wheels have well and truly come off the wagon.
Caulkhead said:
Whilst I agree with your wider point, I have never met anyone with 'nothing to do'. I've met lots who choose to do nothing or refuse to do the jobs immigrants do, but never those actually with nothing to do.
You're not mixing in the right circles. 
johnnytheboy said:
"The poor sod at the bottom" has plenty to do. He can either take one of the many s
t jobs that employers can't fill, or if he's got marketable skills then the world is his oyster.
If there is a problem with our system it's that it is too easy for "poor sod at the bottom" to do nothing and be supported for the state to support him. And we end up in the bizarre situation of employers importing labour for unskilled jobs while we pay our unemployed to sit about.
So maybe the system isn't free market enough, in that the welfare state distorts the function of the employment market?
"The many jobs that employers can't fill"? Show me millions of unfilled private sector job vacancies. t jobs that employers can't fill, or if he's got marketable skills then the world is his oyster. If there is a problem with our system it's that it is too easy for "poor sod at the bottom" to do nothing and be supported for the state to support him. And we end up in the bizarre situation of employers importing labour for unskilled jobs while we pay our unemployed to sit about.
So maybe the system isn't free market enough, in that the welfare state distorts the function of the employment market?
Your last line is closer to the mark - "government distorts the function of the market" is the truth. However, the free market - as we know it in the UK - is not global/universal as we [are led to] believe, nor is it a panacea. On what is your certainty of "the free market" (ie un- or de-regulated) based?
The concept of the free market is not new, under unique circumstances Britain tried it in mid-Victorian times. It lasted barely more than a generation. The current strain of it can largely be credited to influential Chicago University 'thinkers'. Britain (Thatcher), famously, followed the USA (Reagan) in the 80s. So too did New Zealand. The growth of a disenfranchised underclass bloomed in the USA and Britain (I'll dig out stats and post them here). New Zealand suddenly got an underclass for the first time in its history.
"Leaving it to the market" did away with much of society's glue, after all the glue [apparently] served no economic purpose. And now we are where we are. Incarceration in the USA and UK also went up, our so called 'free' countries have an awful lot of unfree people. There will be some more after this weekend. But given 'the cuts', it won't be long before there isn't room to incarcerate any more. Then what?
tinman0 said:
bosscerbera said:
Winston's/Maggie's one-liners are both correct. Hurrah. But the problem with capitalism or, to be precise, the peculiar strain of free market capitalism in major English-speaking economies, is that it does not actually provide the "poor sod at the bottom" with anything to do. Which gives a crude insight into the perception of Tories making money and Socialists giving it away.
Not really. I think it was a recent report (under Labour) that showed the gap of wealthy and poor got bigger under their administration, but the gap got closer under the previous Tory government. The problem in the UK is that there are a large proportion of people who don't want to take low paid remedial work for the simple reason that they think they are too good for it. Unless they can get a CEO role on day 1, or be paid £50kpa, it's not worth the effort. And the welfare society ends up picking up the tab.
As a friend said to me, if he got a full time job again, he'd only be £100pw better off, so what was the point? (And I hate the fact he said that to me).
It's a far cry from the many immigrants in the UK who will happily work multiple low paid jobs, and still find money to send back to another country.
bosscerbera said:
Caulkhead said:
Whilst I agree with your wider point, I have never met anyone with 'nothing to do'. I've met lots who choose to do nothing or refuse to do the jobs immigrants do, but never those actually with nothing to do.
You're not mixing in the right circles. johnnytheboy said:
"The poor sod at the bottom" has plenty to do. He can either take one of the many st jobs that employers can't fill, or if he's got marketable skills then the world is his oyster.
If there is a problem with our system it's that it is too easy for "poor sod at the bottom" to do nothing and be supported for the state to support him. And we end up in the bizarre situation of employers importing labour for unskilled jobs while we pay our unemployed to sit about.
So maybe the system isn't free market enough, in that the welfare state distorts the function of the employment market?
"The many jobs that employers can't fill"? Show me millions of unfilled private sector job vacancies. t jobs that employers can't fill, or if he's got marketable skills then the world is his oyster. If there is a problem with our system it's that it is too easy for "poor sod at the bottom" to do nothing and be supported for the state to support him. And we end up in the bizarre situation of employers importing labour for unskilled jobs while we pay our unemployed to sit about.
So maybe the system isn't free market enough, in that the welfare state distorts the function of the employment market?
Your last line is closer to the mark - "government distorts the function of the market" is the truth. However, the free market - as we know it in the UK - is not global/universal as we [are led to] believe, nor is it a panacea. On what is your certainty of "the free market" (ie un- or de-regulated) based?
The concept of the free market is not new, under unique circumstances Britain tried it in mid-Victorian times. It lasted barely more than a generation. The current strain of it can largely be credited to influential Chicago University 'thinkers'. Britain (Thatcher), famously, followed the USA (Reagan) in the 80s. So too did New Zealand. The growth of a disenfranchised underclass bloomed in the USA and Britain (I'll dig out stats and post them here). New Zealand suddenly got an underclass for the first time in its history.
"Leaving it to the market" did away with much of society's glue, after all the glue [apparently] served no economic purpose. And now we are where we are. Incarceration in the USA and UK also went up, our so called 'free' countries have an awful lot of unfree people. There will be some more after this weekend. But given 'the cuts', it won't be long before there isn't room to incarcerate any more. Then what?
t, to be precise. 
bosscerbera said:
However, the free market - as we know it in the UK - is not global/universal as we [are led to] believe, nor is it a panacea. On what is your certainty of "the free market" (ie un- or de-regulated) based?
So, how do you explain the demise of the British shipbuilding and car manufacturing industries?Once upon a time, we had a technological advantage. We used this advantage to build great industries based on manufacturing. As the rest of the world caught up our workforce became uncompetitive in the international arena.
Don
--
WhoseGeneration said:
Indeed, waste of money that there Cavendish, where my late FIL gained his Physics PhD, pre WW11, when Rutherford was there.
The great man was a real stickler, my FIL told me.
My point was that oxbridge gets massive subsidies which have just been increased. Science unis have had theirs cut. If we want lots of scientific graduates then there needs to be a level playing field.The great man was a real stickler, my FIL told me.
The subsidies should not be to universities but to specific courses. We, as a country, need certain skills. We should invest in those specifically. Anyone else can pay the full price. There are many courses which seem of little use apart from generating lecturers for that specific subject.
Someone on this thread suggested that we used to create great engineers in this country. We need to create more.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff