UK Politics Unexpected Election edition

[Werthead]

"STRONG AND STABLE GOVERNMENT, MOTHERFUCKERS."

* executes 180 degree u-turn and roars back down the road they just came up *

I agree the Conservatives are still probably going to win, but they've really made this massively difficult for themselves. Also, Labour pulled off a tactical coup by announcing the tuition fee cut and confirming it will apply immediately, which has gotten a lot of students and young would-be voters suddenly interested. Maybe they should have announced it more than a couple of days before the registration deadline, but it seems to have helped bump up the registration figures quite a bit.

I did wonder if the Tories' single-minded focus on Brexit and hoping it would make up for their lack of credible plans in other sectors was going to expose them to a full-scale assault on the fronts of the NHS, education and social care, and so it has proven. I think the Tories can refocus and still win this, and Labour are still hamstrung by infighting (whereas a sudden swing behind the Corbyn agenda going into the election might have been wiser, but now might look opportunistic). But it should be closer than it was looking a few weeks ago.

[williamjm]

32 minutes ago, Werthead said:

"STRONG AND STABLE GOVERNMENT, MOTHERFUCKERS."

* executes 180 degree u-turn and roars back down the road they just came up *

While simultaneously denying that their direction has changed at all, and blaming Jeremy Corbyn for the change in direction that hasn't happened.

The Tories would have to try really hard to lose this election, but they're making a valiant effort, particularly in the way their controversial policies seem to particularly target their own voter base. Maybe they thought the pensioner vote would be too hypnotised by the talk of Brexit and reduced immigration to pay attention to anything else?

[Mathis]

26 minutes ago, williamjm said:

The Tories would have to try really hard to lose this election, but they're making a valiant effort, particularly in the way their controversial policies seem to particularly target their own voter base. Maybe they thought the pensioner vote would be too hypnotised by the talk of Brexit and reduced immigration to pay attention to anything else?

Looks like they decided to make some minor moves to tackle the demographic timebomb we're about to face (which will be exacerbated by their moronic immigration policy), and then got scared by the result. Hardly inspires confidence.

Meanwhile Labour and the Greens decide to back a regressive tranfer of wealth from the taxpayers to students who are still pissing and moaning about tuition fees. Christ, this election is so depressing. What a fucking shower.
 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

The strong and stable bit.

I know not particularly new. Still somewhat entertaining.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Mathis said:

Meanwhile Labour and the Greens decide to back a regressive tranfer of wealth from the taxpayers to students who are still pissing and moaning about tuition fees. Christ, this election is so depressing. What a fucking shower.

I see you know very little about tuition fees.

Introducing tuition fees was extremely regressive to start with. In their current form, they're even more regressive, because rich kids can pay them up front, meaning poorer people pay more for university studies.

Paying for university tuition via higher rate income tax is progressive, fees are regressive. This is a fact. Sorry to 'piss and moan' about it, but sadly I know something about the subject, and I have this habit of complaining about bad, unjust policies.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

I see you know very little about tuition fees.

Introducing tuition fees was extremely regressive to start with. In their current form, they're even more regressive, because rich kids can pay them up front, meaning poorer people pay more for university studies.

Paying for university tuition via higher rate income tax is progressive, fees are regressive. This is a fact. Sorry to 'piss and moan' about it, but sadly I know something about the subject, and I have this habit of complaining about bad, unjust policies.

still the last thing we need is MORE people wasting their lives going to Uni instead of actually contributing to society.

[Wolfgirly]

I'm going to say something controversial now, but it has to be said. I can't hold it in much longer. I'm saying it as a telling off on myself for being naive in choosing the university subjects offered to me.I picked something I felt like at the time only to feel loss of interest in the second year. It would've been helpful if my relatives were pushy and encouraged me to take up an apprenticeship or take up a course to get a regular job, instead of a "fantastic" course to get a dream job that I hoped for. I don't think enough school leavers are offered apprenticeships in skills to do with basic things like plumbing, hair dressing, pet care, childcare, elderly help,gardening, cooking, mechanics, cleaning... as everyone wants something more "glamorous" in media or science. There's a lot of uni drop outs who can't keep up with the fees and toughness of living, because they weren't sure what they wanted to start with.

[mormont]

12 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

still the last thing we need is MORE people wasting their lives going to Uni instead of actually contributing to society.

Some people who go to university contribute to society, some don't. Same as people who don't go, really. But the idea that there are too many people going to university nowadays has been widely discredited. Most of the fastest-growing professions with the highest shortages of labour require graduates (IT, healthcare, etc.) Graduates are more productive, and as noted earlier the biggest labour problem in the UK economy outside of key skills shortages (again, mostly in graduate subjects) is productivity. A few more plumbers might be useful, yes. But that doesn't mean a few less graduates would be a good thing. It wouldn't. The plumbers we need should be trained from people who do not want to go to university, not those who do.

[Rippounet]

30 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

still the last thing we need is MORE people wasting their lives going to Uni instead of actually contributing to society.

1) Educating yourself is always a contribution to society (in economic terms, we could talk of positive externalities). At the very least, it pretty much is a prerequisite for any meaningful contribution.
2) If society is not about helping individuals with stuff like education, health or justice, then society is completely and utterly pointless and humanity has no civilization worthy of the name.
3) Education and higher education considerably reinforce democracy. Conversely, the less educated the people are, the worse politics become.
4) Working is not in itself a "contribution to society," but a means to survive (i.e. buy food, pay rent... etc). Many people think there is more to life than surviving.
5) There isn't enough work for everyone. This is a structural problem that will only get worse in the next decades. In fact, the only reason why unemployment isn't higher in developed societies is because we have a consumer society largely based on useless gadgets and services. The first solution to the problem would be to have more people spending more time in higher education.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

still the last thing we need is MORE people wasting their lives going to Uni instead of actually contributing to society.

 

Going forwards, both society and life in general and employment will require better, higher-educated people more capable of dealing with complex issues. Not everyone can handle that, which is a problem (and will get considerably worse as time goes on), but it can be mitigated by educating as many people to as high a level as possible. The refusal of many British young people to go to university, in part due to tuition fees putting them off over the last twenty years, is partially responsible for the problems we see now with not enough people going into engineering, the sciences and medicine, with our resulting need to draw on foreign migrants instead.

[SeanF]

14 hours ago, williamjm said:

While simultaneously denying that their direction has changed at all, and blaming Jeremy Corbyn for the change in direction that hasn't happened.

The Tories would have to try really hard to lose this election, but they're making a valiant effort, particularly in the way their controversial policies seem to particularly target their own voter base. Maybe they thought the pensioner vote would be too hypnotised by the talk of Brexit and reduced immigration to pay attention to anything else?

The Tories frequently do make a valiant effort to lose election campaigns that should be a walk in the park.  Fortunately, the outcome of the election is usually decided before the campaign begins.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

My point is there are a small subset of jobs that might require time in a university in order to prepare you for those roles. In the 70's 10% of people went to university, now its closer to 50%. 

I've got almost 15 years of experience working in different companies, doing a variety of roles and meeting many many people. I can say only a tiny tiny minority of people I've met are doing a job that bares even the slightest connection to what they did at Uni. Sure there are certain jobs out there, in fields mentioned above that having a degree is vital, but in many many roles it simply is basically irrelevant to what you do on a day to day basis. 

I can say personally, having done 2 degrees, that I really wish I hadn't. I have learnt far more about the working world, and how to do my job, from simply being in the job, or from self learning, than anything I got from my degree. And I happen to be one of the tiny minority of people whose degree is relevant to their job. 

And I'm not just talking about plumbers here when I think that there needs to be far more focus on internship and company training schemes than on degrees. Getting people to learn how to act like an adult and being in the working world when they are 18 rather than sometimes by their mid 20s. 

So my point isn't that people shouldn't educate themselves, of course they should, and it should be constant throughout their lives. But is Uni the best place to do that in so many cases, and if not, what are the better ways to educate people. Of course you learn more at Uni than just your subject, it can teach you discipline and work ethic ( I'd argue you should already have these before this point however). But we now live in a society where a degree is a prerequisite to having almost ANY job, a qualification that we don't even think twice about whether we need or not 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Tories frequently do make a valiant effort to lose election campaigns that should be a walk in the park.  Fortunately, the outcome of the election is usually decided before the campaign begins.

I think it will be all about turnout this year. If enough young people turn up to vote it will be closer than expected. Hard to get a good sense if that will happen or not though, I expected a very different result for Brexit.

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I think it will be all about turnout this year. If enough young people turn up to vote it will be closer than expected. Hard to get a good sense if that will happen or not though, I expected a very different result for Brexit.

That probably wouldn't help Labour much.  I read one analysis which suggested the Tories would only have lost six seats, if turnout among young voters had matched turnout among older voters in 2015.  The reason being that young people are disproportionately concentrated in inner city seats, and university seats, where Labour already sweeps the board.

Labour needs to be able to break into seats like Dartford or Nuneaton or Swindon North to have any chance of winning, but the collapse of UKIP will probably result in very comfortable wins for the Conservatives in such seats, as well as putting seats like Hartlepool, Grimsby, Stoke South, NE Derbyshire, Birmingham Erdington in jeapordy.

[Fragile Bird]

18 hours ago, Werthead said:

Maybe they should have announced it more than a couple of days before the registration deadline, but it seems to have helped bump up the registration figures quite a bit.

I've been meaning to ask someone about registration. Do you guys actually have to register to vote? For every election? Or once you have registered, are you done for life, except for changes of address?

I ask because here in Canada the government has voters lists which you need to confirm you're on. You get mailed a postcard with the location of your polling station. If you realize you didn't receive one you need to register, but you can register at the polling station on election day with the right ID. I can't actually even remember how I got on the list. I think my name just showed up on a list once I turned 18, from government records.

Years ago they actually posted lists of names, tied to a tree or a hydro or telephone pole at the top of a city block, and you checked to make sure your name was on it. (Yes, I'm ancient, I wish I could change that! )

I ask because friends on facebook have encouraged people to get registered before the deadline, and the idea of a deadline is so bizarre to me.

Secondly, I have seen a few stories about Brexit converts - people who voted Stay and have now switched to Leave. Is this a real thing? Has Leave support grown?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

 

Secondly, I have seen a few stories about Brexit converts - people who voted Stay and have now switched to Leave. Is this a real thing? Has Leave support grown?

Not sure this is a massive thing, its more that there are a number of people who voted Remain, but now the vote has happened, accept the result and want to just make the process happen in the best way possible. I'd say I'm in that camp, although I'm far further in favour of Brexit than I was a few months ago. 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

I've been meaning to ask someone about registration. Do you guys actually have to register to vote? For every election? Or once you have registered, are you done for life, except for changes of address?

I ask because here in Canada the government has voters lists which you need to confirm you're on. You get mailed a postcard with the location of your polling station. If you realize you didn't receive one you need to register, but you can register at the polling station on election day with the right ID. I can't actually even remember how I got on the list. I think my name just showed up on a list once I turned 18, from government records.

Years ago they actually posted lists of names, tied to a tree or a hydro or telephone pole at the top of a city block, and you checked to make sure your name was on it. (Yes, I'm ancient, I wish I could change that! )

I ask because friends on facebook have encouraged people to get registered before the deadline, and the idea of a deadline is so bizarre to me.

Secondly, I have seen a few stories about Brexit converts - people who voted Stay and have now switched to Leave. Is this a real thing? Has Leave support grown?

You need to positively register  when you reach 18, or when you move house.  Once that happens, you just get a letter each year, reminding you that if your details have changed, you should notify the electoral registration officer.

[Fragile Bird]

22 minutes ago, SeanF said:

You need to positively register  when you reach 18, or when you move house.  Once that happens, you just get a letter each year, reminding you that if your details have changed, you should notify the electoral registration officer.

How about this deadline thing - can you not register up to and including when you walk into the polling station?

[SeanF]

Spoiler

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

How about this deadline thing - can you not register up to and including when you walk into the polling station?

 

No. 

[mormont]

On 23/05/2017 at 11:02 AM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

My point is there are a small subset of jobs that might require time in a university in order to prepare you for those roles. In the 70's 10% of people went to university, now its closer to 50%.

I've got almost 15 years of experience working in different companies, doing a variety of roles and meeting many many people. I can say only a tiny tiny minority of people I've met are doing a job that bares even the slightest connection to what they did at Uni. Sure there are certain jobs out there, in fields mentioned above that having a degree is vital, but in many many roles it simply is basically irrelevant to what you do on a day to day basis. 

I can say personally, having done 2 degrees, that I really wish I hadn't. I have learnt far more about the working world, and how to do my job, from simply being in the job, or from self learning, than anything I got from my degree. And I happen to be one of the tiny minority of people whose degree is relevant to their job. 

And I'm not just talking about plumbers here when I think that there needs to be far more focus on internship and company training schemes than on degrees. Getting people to learn how to act like an adult and being in the working world when they are 18 rather than sometimes by their mid 20s. 

So my point isn't that people shouldn't educate themselves, of course they should, and it should be constant throughout their lives. But is Uni the best place to do that in so many cases, and if not, what are the better ways to educate people. Of course you learn more at Uni than just your subject, it can teach you discipline and work ethic ( I'd argue you should already have these before this point however). But we now live in a society where a degree is a prerequisite to having almost ANY job, a qualification that we don't even think twice about whether we need or not 

That subset of jobs has grown along with the proportion of people going to university, though. The economy isn't static, after all.

As for people doing a job that bears only a slight resemblance to what they did at uni: that was the case in the 1970s, too. University education isn't necessarily vocational. Does that make it 'irrelevant', though? It does not. University teaches skills vital for many jobs - critical thinking, for example, or how to research and present information. As noted, this is one reason why university graduates tend to be more productive.

I'll repeat: the idea that we don't need so many university graduates does not bear out. Some graduates will feel, like yourself and Wolfgirly, may individually feel like it was a waste, and that's sad. But overall, in policy terms, it still makes sense to encourage people to get a degree. The question is, how should it be paid for?