|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On June 10 2017 01:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 00:55 Neneu wrote:On June 10 2017 00:52 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On June 10 2017 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2017 00:39 Reaps wrote:On June 10 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
People think TL leans way left because of the younger demo, but TL is actually pretty center-right (my guess is income/family wealth skew higher here). Surprised to find out people aren't more excited about Labor doing well. Nice joke Are you implying TL is really far left? Because the way they have approached folks like Corbyn or Sanders doesn't indicate they are imo. Probably just intelligent enough to know policies like free university tuition are not economically viable. That is actually not true. Education and health care (if one exclude people who are too old to be in the workforce) are the two things that give the biggest return in a nation's economy, long-term. Maybe if you allowed it only for a select few courses that were of economic benefit to the country.Engineering, medicine, sciences.Get a heap of kids studying what they're interested in cos it's free and you've got a total mess.Taxpayers paying for kids to study art, history, law, philosophy is a total misuse of funds.There are already far too many graduates in those fields for the number jobs available.
Scandinavia says "hi". Denmark even pays in the proximity of 1k USD/month to every student regardless of field of study. Sweden and Norway slightly less, but still students receive a stipend from the respective states.
|
I love how history, law, philosophy are always viewed as worthless compared to the sciences. But those are the fields that created the world where the sciences flourished. Who will defense the scientists in court or create the new laws to govern the inventions of the scientist? Who will argue that science should not be demonized for dispelling closely held beliefs about human nature or reality? And then we have the reality that those fields can be just as valuable to a nation in GDP.
|
On June 10 2017 01:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 00:55 Neneu wrote:On June 10 2017 00:52 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On June 10 2017 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2017 00:39 Reaps wrote:On June 10 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
People think TL leans way left because of the younger demo, but TL is actually pretty center-right (my guess is income/family wealth skew higher here). Surprised to find out people aren't more excited about Labor doing well. Nice joke Are you implying TL is really far left? Because the way they have approached folks like Corbyn or Sanders doesn't indicate they are imo. Probably just intelligent enough to know policies like free university tuition are not economically viable. That is actually not true. Education and health care (if one exclude people who are too old to be in the workforce) are the two things that give the biggest return in a nation's economy, long-term. Maybe if you allowed it only for a select few courses that were of economic benefit to the country.Engineering, medicine, sciences.Get a heap of kids studying what they're interested in cos it's free and you've got a total mess.Taxpayers paying for kids to study art, history, law, philosophy is a total misuse of funds.There are already far too many graduates in those fields for the number jobs available.
Not really, it has been shown several times over that free research and education focus, is more valuable than industry focused research. Take for example how kinetic inhibitors, used in order to combat hydrates in petroleum pipes, were discovered through research on fish living in polar areas. Or how important graduates educated in social studies were(and is) to one of the greatest product/service innovating companies in the world, IDEO.
|
On June 10 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:
I love how history, law, philosophy are always viewed as worthless compared to the sciences. But those are the fields that created the world where the sciences flourished. Who will defense the scientists in court or create the new laws to govern the inventions of the scientist? Who will argue that science should not be demonized for dispelling closely held beliefs about human nature or reality? And then we have the reality that those fields can be just as valuable to a nation in GDP.
I anxiously await the day when lawyers start helping research instead of helping big corporations fuck researchers over. That would be a sight to behold.
|
On June 10 2017 01:55 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:
I love how history, law, philosophy are always viewed as worthless compared to the sciences. But those are the fields that created the world where the sciences flourished. Who will defense the scientists in court or create the new laws to govern the inventions of the scientist? Who will argue that science should not be demonized for dispelling closely held beliefs about human nature or reality? And then we have the reality that those fields can be just as valuable to a nation in GDP. I anxiously await the day when lawyers start helping research instead of helping big corporations fuck researchers over. That would be a sight to behold.
But they would be so bad at scientific research. It would be terrible. Just let them fill the role they have in drafting the legal paperwork for research grants.
|
So the tories have achieved their largest share of the popular since the 80s. And it is a disaster. Go figure.
|
|
|
On June 10 2017 00:52 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2017 00:39 Reaps wrote:On June 10 2017 00:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
People think TL leans way left because of the younger demo, but TL is actually pretty center-right (my guess is income/family wealth skew higher here). Surprised to find out people aren't more excited about Labor doing well. Nice joke Are you implying TL is really far left? Because the way they have approached folks like Corbyn or Sanders doesn't indicate they are imo. Probably just intelligent enough to know policies like free university tuition are not economically viable.
I like that you manage to make this a matter of intelligence when it's not only economically viable, it's applied. It's very rare in the first world that you have to go in debt to get a higher education, some countries even pay you to get one, and in the few places where it's the case that you have to pay a bunch people are having a debate over whether you're intelligent if you don't think you should have to.
Just have a look at the world. Sometimes.
|
Inexpensive job/skill training, either through higher education, apprentices or trade school, is a great tool for economic growth. Planet Money(NPR podcast about economic issues) just ran a story about the tools governments can use for economic growth(for the US). People need to bury the concept that the government paying to train its citizens is bad. That is why all our nations have free basic education.
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/06/07/531957453/episode-776-here-we-grow-again
|
Maybe not the result the conservatives did expect when calling the election based on a huge poll lead but the outcome is not that bad for May I think. Its not like the DUP will ever vote against her and risk new elections with a possible labour majority,that would be far worse for them and their case or no?
|
On June 10 2017 02:25 pmh wrote:
Maybe not the result the conservatives did expect when calling the election based on a huge poll lead but the outcome is not that bad for May I think. Its not like the DUP will ever vote against her and risk new elections with a possible labour majority,that would be far worse for them and their case or no?
If the alternative is losing all their own voters due to getting bullied in a coallition (see libdems), a possible labour majority isn't too bad.
It's terrible for the tories though, so they won't bully DUP too much to prevent that from happening.
Should be an interesting dynamic.
|
If they decide not to hold another election soon basically nothing will happen dead parliament with an inactive conservative government. May should go ASAP and new conservative leader should hold a vote in parliament (so every party can take equal blame) for a 2nd election.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On June 10 2017 04:41 Zaros wrote:
If they decide not to hold another election soon basically nothing will happen dead parliament with an inactive conservative government. May should go ASAP and new conservative leader should hold a vote in parliament (so every party can take equal blame) for a 2nd election.
poor brenda from bristol
|
Rumours are May will survive a couple of months to get Brexit underway then there will be leadership contest, Boris Johnson vs David Davis vs Amber Rudd + Michael Gove in a joint ticket (probably negotiated by George Osborne, Rudd is one of his proteges and Gove his friend.)
|
United States42823 Posts
Surely not BoJo. David Davis was rejected by the party in the contest vs David Cameron 10 years ago. Gove is pretty tainted by his career to date. What they need now is someone like Cameron was then. After Michael Howard lost in 2005 Cameron won the leadership with a cool, hip, likable Tory angle. Fairly young and good looking, pretty wife, sledding in the Arctic and talking a strong game on environmentalism and global warming, way better rhetoric on human rights, EU and so forth than any of the older party, didn't let everyone know he was a posh cunt, not tarred by Thatcher legacy, kinda "Cool Britannia" 10 years late.
Obviously Cameron was a letdown but there isn't anyone in the party now that has what they lost when he resigned. 2005 Cameron is the kind of leader the Conservatives urgently need and simply don't have.
edit: On which note if Corbyn had campaigned for remain or given any kind of leadership at all to his party during Brexit we'd not be leaving the EU and we'd still have Cameron.
|
Or if Cameron decided to back leave we would still have Cameron as PM in a hugely dominant position and we would have never had this election.
Also Times calls for May to go
|
On June 10 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:
I love how history, law, philosophy are always viewed as worthless compared to the sciences. But those are the fields that created the world where the sciences flourished. Who will defense the scientists in court or create the new laws to govern the inventions of the scientist? Who will argue that science should not be demonized for dispelling closely held beliefs about human nature or reality? And then we have the reality that those fields can be just as valuable to a nation in GDP.
My argument is there are simply too many lawyers already.
There is no benefit in making law degrees free leading to an even greater influx of law students.
Not enough positions.
|
So, a coalition of chaos propped up by terrorist sympathizers then.
|
On June 10 2017 10:25 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 01:24 Plansix wrote:
I love how history, law, philosophy are always viewed as worthless compared to the sciences. But those are the fields that created the world where the sciences flourished. Who will defense the scientists in court or create the new laws to govern the inventions of the scientist? Who will argue that science should not be demonized for dispelling closely held beliefs about human nature or reality? And then we have the reality that those fields can be just as valuable to a nation in GDP. My argument is there are simply too many lawyers already. There is no benefit in making law degrees free leading to an even greater influx of law students. Not enough positions.
Over regulation is also a very real concern in many fields right now. As someone who has studied both medicine and law I would say that both fields are needed and are equally important but there is a constant over education of lawyers and a constant under education of doctors. Mostly because it's a lot cheaper and easier to educate people in bulk for the humanities but it's still a problem. For law most people are also qualified but for things like history it's a problem when you over educate and society is mostly looking for a few very competent specialists.
I would much rather have a system where only a limited amount of students could actually study things like law, philosophy, history etc (raising the entry levels and getting more competent students on average) and all students in technical areas had a mandatory semester of subjects like history, law, philosophy, gender studies etc. It could be tailored to the need of the profession and would be far more useful than just bringing in another lawyer for every little problem, usually creating five more practical problems in the process. And when you really need a specialist in the humanities you know you get a competent one AND the people within the field know how to communicate with the specialist in an efficient manner since they have a basic understanding off the subject.
|
I humbly welcome the United Kingdom to American conservatism. Normalization happens fast. Keep that in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
