The game is on.

[floppit]

I'm with Horwood Beer Master. This time it counts, time to remember a little more clearly than the spin doctor slide show spewing from media moguls! I've posted this bit before but mean it just as much now:

....and what seems to me a nationwide dementia blighted memory! Most of all I'm pissed off with the whole expenses thing - yes it was a problem, yes it needed to come to light, yes it needs fixing but in the whole scheme of things it's small fry.

There's David Cameron accusing Gordon Brown of a car boot sale of assets - well a car boot sale is all that's bloody left! We used to own the utilities till they were sold to those who could pay, we used to own swathes of service industries that supported education, the NHS, social care and even defence, we were employers and had control over them, now instead there's a never ending scrabble to regain the control with legislation (the recent ISA registration scheme has as much to do with privatisation as ever it has to do with safeguarding) because we've lost it, it was sold. We also owned millions of properties that rose year by year in value while bringing in a regular income - sold now, underpriced by 60%. Of course we got to keep the dilapidated ones and the families that never did pay a regular rent, what we sold was the homes that people could and would buy, the ones set to rise in value and lived in by relatively stable tenants. Gone.

The press is in a frenzy over £12,000 too much spent on cleaning but seems to have completely forgotten in past times we voted in the Mum of an arms dealer who cranked up defence spending in her first years in office - ok, eventually the spending calmed down but that was after her son was a made man.

For Margaret Thatcher it was a triumph for her policy of 'Batting for Britain'. For the middlemen, the fixers behind the deal, it meant vast commissions. For Mark Thatcher, it allegedly meant a pounds 12m windfall at the age of 31.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 41987.html

You'd have thought her being buddies with Pinochet would have raised enough flags - but no, Cameron still happily boasts her favour.

And Gordon Brown? I haven't a smeggin' clue! I can't pretend to be a good enough economist to evaluate his actions myself, I also have little trust left for the accuracy of current commentary. There are two things though that I am sure of, the amount of debt we have now cannot solely be blamed on Gordon, most of our assets were flogged before Labour came to power and the North Sea Oil windfall disappeared into the ether (sp?). The other thing I'm sure of is that Gordon Brown is a lousy politician - he's getting bullied and behaving like someone bullied - watching him drilled about his sight, watching his responses or the lack of them to the torrent of mud slung from across the benches is car crash tv.

So the Tories who now plead that all financial ruin lies at Labours door DID sell off our assets, by the billions, owned by all the people and undersold to a few who could afford it. They pissed away the windfall of North Sea Oil, and broke the cardinal rule of good housekeeping - don't sell off land!

Yeah, amnesia about sums it up and I think unless people start to remember they will be back, same show, same results - out of the frying pan and smack bang into the fire.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Unfortunately, the elections are only a 2 horse race. What can we do, apart from voting for a party which has no chance of getting in anyway? And are they gonna be any different?

[floppit]

I might not know what the answer is but I know what it isn't - buying the bullcrap that voting a party out fixes anything when they are replaced by even worse! If that was going to work it would have shown some signs of doing so over the last century but all that's happened is party politics have become ever more a freak show of one minute sound bites and a means to vent resentment.

I mean FFS - we now have war by dead babies, two leaders head to head over their grief and how it deepened them. We can't just swallow this shite and expect things to ever change. Right now it is a 2 horse race so we have no choice but to live with that, what happens next will surely depend 100% on something shifting from the politics of anger to something a bit more constructive.

[klr]

The sooner you get a proper PR voting system, the better. Come to the dark side, you'll like it.

[floppit]

The sooner you get a proper PR voting system, the better. Come to the dark side, you'll like it.

I'm inclined to agree so the question becomes which of the two current parties will be more likely to shift in that direction? Ok, it's a matter of slim versus no chance - but still, if PR is the answer then all hands on deck for slim!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8492622.stm

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Our voting system needs to be changed for sure. I mean, NU Labour wins on 37% of the votes. That's 63% against! And for a 2 horse race!!!!

I can remember agreeing with Nu Labour's anthem in 1997. Things Can Only Get Better...... How wrong it was.
I wonder what it'll be this time? All Things Bright and Beautiful?

[floppit]

I can remember agreeing with Nu Labour's anthem in 1997. Things Can Only Get Better...... How wrong it was.
I wonder what it'll be this time? All Things Bright and Beautiful?

Well, we keep getting told things are worse than in the 80's and 90's but that's not exactly how I remember it. I remember interest rates at 12%, repossessions, the end of the grant system for higher ed, and cack handed privatisation well under-way in our core services. I remember the poll tax and the mines closing, I also remember homelessness on an unprecedented scale, mental health provision even more scarce than it is now. In social care kids were still housed in sprawling institutions and did less well than siblings left with the families they were taken from - honestly I don't know what was happening with the old or ill at that point but the Disabilities Discrimination Act hadn't come in so they had little in the way of legal equality or protection.

Yes, the budget deficit is bigger, but short of a bloody miracle what else could plausibly have happened as we entered world recession with what was left of the assets we once had as a nation prior to the Tories last reign? No family would expect to remain financially viable with increasing costs, in a recession and having sold off their industry and land.

[Rum]

Its a chicken and egg thing. Nobody will go with PR unless they think they have something to gain from it, and they only do if they fear they will lose - which labour must surely do. The Conservative lead should be much greater than it is however given the crap few years labour have had on their plates, which is why a hung parliament (and therefore a more collective approach) is looking more likely.

Unfortunately, while that sounds like a good thing, what it will mean is watered down decisions and policy, not least on the economic front - even if someone can form a government. Don't forget however it looks parliamentary wise, someone has to go to the Queen and be 'invited' to form the next government. If they can't do that it means another election (I think!).The 'markets' (the bastards) won't like that one bit and sadly it will add to our woes.

I have never seen a set of circumstances like this in my adult life. I think the potential for a great deal more economic pain, and all that goes with it, is massive....whoever gets in.

[floppit]

That's why the game is on. We might well be between a rock and a hard place but no mistake we will live with our reaction to that. Labour has at least some parliamentary reform on the table - actually I think a better system than we have now even if it falls short of PR.

Something's got to change but not out of anger or to spit back in disappointment over how the left turned right - going further right won't rectify that. This is the first time in one hell of a long time we've actually had an election without a forgone conclusion. We might moan about the system's shortcoming (plenty to moan about) but we have more than some nations dream of. We can type this stuff to each other for a start (I think Chinese prisons hold people who could explain to us the value of that), we have a vote and while the choices are truly dire at least we have it.

If we aren't careful the Tories will get in. Why is it so freakin' hard to remember anything past a decade?

[klr]

That's why the game is on. We might well be between a rock and a hard place but no mistake we will live with our reaction to that. Labour has at least some parliamentary reform on the table - actually I think a better system than we have now even if it falls short of PR.

Something's got to change but not out of anger or to spit back in disappointment over how the left turned right - going further right won't rectify that. This is the first time in one hell of a long time we've actually had an election without a forgone conclusion. We might moan about the system's shortcoming (plenty to moan about) but we have more than some nations dream of. We can type this stuff to each other for a start (I think Chinese prisons hold people who could explain to us the value of that), we have a vote and while the choices are truly dire at least we have it.

If we aren't careful the Tories will get in. Why is it so freakin' hard to remember anything past a decade?

"A week is a long time in politics ..." - Harold Wilson

[Deep Sea Isopod]

I can remember agreeing with Nu Labour's anthem in 1997. Things Can Only Get Better...... How wrong it was.
I wonder what it'll be this time? All Things Bright and Beautiful?

Well, we keep getting told things are worse than in the 80's and 90's but that's not exactly how I remember it. I remember..... the end of the grant system for higher ed,

Nowaday's kids aren't even reaching higher education levels

I also remember homelessness on an unprecedented scale

12% of the homeless in London are ex-forces. We have the highest net immigration levels after the US, and we find the immigrants jobs and social housing, while the people who volunteered to defend our country (regardless of the legality of currents wars) are left on the rubish tip, relying on charities.

In social care kids were still housed in sprawling institutions and did less well than siblings left with the families they were taken from -

And now there are kids being left with uncaring parents, who only had children in order to get more money from the state to fund their drink/drug/smoking habits.
Many of these kids themselves will go on to a burden on the state. Encouraged by the benefits system.

honestly I don't know what was happening with the old or ill at that point

Probably being left on a trolly in a hospital corridor? Eye's, teeth and feet were all treatable on the NHS in the 80's. Not anymore (for working families.)
Did we have "Health tourism" in the NHS in the 80's? That's where someone comes here to visit relatives, then overnight they become sick. They book into the nearest hospital for free treatment.
The NHS bump them to the top of the queue for treatment because the patient can't speak English and the translators charge by the hour.

Yes, the budget deficit is bigger, but short of a bloody miracle what else could plausibly have happened as we entered world recession with what was left of the assets we once had as a nation prior to the Tories last reign? No family would expect to remain financially viable with increasing costs, in a recession and having sold off their industry and land.

Right at the start of the recession, I asked if the increasing utility and fuel costs played a part. I can remember hearing people saying about pulling in their purse strings because of the price rises.
Of course, the gas and electric goes back to the privatisation. These companies kept putting up bills, but under the government, would they still have put up these costs? The gov have to make back a lot of money from somewhere, so where better than from something everyone MUST buy?

[floppit]

Nowaday's kids aren't even reaching higher education levels

Wrong!
In 2003/4 there were 946919 Teens entering undergraduate courses, in 2008/9 2027085 people FROM the uk enrolled in HE institutions - how do I know this? This government was the first to record not just the basic figures but also the percentage that got there from state schools (only began to be measured in 2003 and has stayed fairly level). You might notice the extra digit on the second figure. First figure from here:
http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/450/129/
second:
http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/1578/161/

I'll come back to the rest later - but if you have any evidence for what you're saying (no challenge re the armed forces and homelessness - it has always been thus!), you might want to add it. I'll certainly evidence.

[Azathoth]

2 horse race? I thought it was one horse cloned and wearing different colours myself

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Nowaday's kids aren't even reaching higher education levels

Wrong!
In 2003/4 there were 946919 Teens entering undergraduate courses, in 2008/9 2027085 people FROM the uk enrolled in HE institutions - how do I know this? This government was the first to record not just the basic figures but also the percentage that got there from state schools (only began to be measured in 2003 and has stayed fairly level). You might notice the extra digit on the second figure. First figure from here:
http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/450/129/
second:
http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/1578/161/

I'll come back to the rest later - but if you have any evidence for what you're saying (no challenge re the armed forces and homelessness - it has always been thus!), you might want to add it. I'll certainly evidence.

I think DSI's point may have been not so much that they weren't going into HE but that they were going into HE without reaching the required standard.

As a trained maths teacher, I can confirm that modern A level exam papers are barely above what used to be set before O level (now GCSE) students in my day. This is NOT rosy tinted spectacles - I have compared papers from 1980 and 200? fairly recently.

Setting targets for academic attainment based solely on grades, basing an institution's funding upon meeting those targets and continually raising the bar as they are met results in one thing only - easier exams and pressure on teachers to 'assist' pupils with coursework. A friend of mine works in a 6th form college and has been told that he is not allowed to fail ANY student, no matter how little work they do, how poor their attendance record or how low their ability level! There are teachers in his college that he knows have handed students full answers to tests for them to copy.

We are raising a generation of kids that believes that the way to achieve success is to cheat and that there will always be somebody there to help them do that. they have a RIGHT to pass their exams, whether they do any work or not.

[/soapbox]

[klr]

Do. NOT. get. me. started. on. grade inflation. :pissed: :pissed: :pissed: :pissed: :pissed:


Re the "dumbing down" of exams/curricula, and the bending over backwards to stop students from (shock! horror!) failing: I can quote chapter and verse on that one, at least at third level, at least in this country. But it's not just third level itself. The points required to get into a third level institutions are obviously inflated far above what would have been considered the norm in my time. Either, that, or I'm far duller than average compared with today's students.