By whom?
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
By whom?
Might not be an awful idea actually, but aye, as you say no doubt a government would find a way to feck it up.
I think one of the problems we face with university education is that the whole fundamental approach to who goes has changed. We've seen an increased number of people go, as opposed to wealthy elites who can afford it due to their parents, but the thing about that is that it means people who go now (for the most part) are expected to go in order to achieve employment by the end. That's probably a fairly new approach in certain respects for many universities, where employment has to become key over the whole general learning experience.
At least there's an aim. Corbin just admitted that there won't be a meaningful reduction. Good luck appeasing the millions and millions that voted on just that issue. It's how you alienate a large part of society that's always felt ignored by the political class.
This is incredibly naive. No one has a clear idea of what the job market will look like in 20 years thanks to the inevitable rise of AI. In fact flexibility in skills is going to be very important. We should be making sure (1) that students are not overly financially burdened by their choice of study, a choice which may turn out to be a lot less useful than anticipated, and (2) that retraining or changing careers is financially viable, something that it currently is not - second degrees are ££££
Any of the nuclear armed states.
Will of the people as per ballot right now is Brexit. And the hard brexiters are not gonna vote for him anyway.
You are being too black and white about it. 48% voted for remaining as well and even out of the rest 52% not all would favor a hard brexit. So nothing is set in stone regards to migration question especially when it is confronted with choice of remaining in single market or not.
Reasonable to say that this audience was move favorable to May?
There is no risk, it's just scaremongering. Whoever decides to launch the first missile would get instantly wiped out by the rest and its gameover Planet Earth.
It's absurd given the state of our country that we're actively sat here discussing use of Nucleur Weapons. I mean seriously what the feck.
''Ah, this lot... they say they ain't ever using their bombs, we can proper get stuck in here...''
''Oh shit!''
The deterrent exists anyway, outside of the posturing about one's intent to use them.
''Oh shit!''
The deterrent exists anyway, outside of the posturing about one's intent to use them.
You mean like how the whole world doesn't look away right now as many countries bomb the living hell out of each other?
Psst. It's the same aim the idiot in charge of the party has had for the last 7 years, including when she was in control of that exact issue.
I'm a Labour member and wet liberal lefty, but this dismissal of the nuclear question is crazy to me. It's one of the biggest issues facing humanity, along with climate change, it could literally be the end of the world. It should be one of the first discussions in any election.There is no risk, it's just scaremongering. Whoever decides to launch the first missile would get instantly wiped out by the rest and its gameover Planet Earth.
It's absurd given the state of our country that we're actively sat here discussing use of Nucleur Weapons. I mean seriously what the feck.
Which one?
Which one of:
-USA
-Russia
-France
-China
-Israel
-India
-Pakistan
Do you think are likely to nuke us in the next 5-10 years?
Some of their half had been well coached for me, & were well augmented by the feckwits.
May wins on points for me.
That's then more an issue linked with maintenance loans and bursaries.
No not at all. But there was a very vocal, very pro-nuclear weapons contingent and Dimbleby let them spend an unreasonable amount of time on the topic
Oh so now nukes are no different to regular bombs. Christ, I can't keep up with these goalposts.
Aye, a fair point which was partly what I was getting at. Due to the fact that markets and demands are constantly changing it's difficult to predict what's needed and what isn't. STEM degrees are typically valued higher than most others but with their increasing prevalence I've heard of people doing them and finding it harder to get ideal employment than what they'd have expected.
The cold war ended a long time ago, if there is another moment in time where there's a real risk of it happening I'm sure PM Corbyn will be booted by the other MPs. But as it stands, this is just a paranoid line of thinking with no basis in reality.
It actually felt mildly even tonight. A good few really did seem against Corbyn towards the end but could've been due to the nature of the questions/responses etc.
Firstly he didn;t say he wouldn't use them but that he will decide at the time.
And 2ndly their are other countries in the world too who won't look the other way in such a contrived scenario. For example japan and sout korea don't have nukes despite having the capability to produce them and they are at far greater threat from North Korea than UK.
No it doesn't, it involves putting money in students pockets! The University doesn't get anything extra, they just get their fees from government, rather than the government spending that money on something useful.
So conventional mass bombings with huge casualties aren't taking place all over the world right now as we speak? This notion that the world would police itself without the need for us to have a nuclear deterrent is beyond naive.
Nah.
No. As I said, EU membership rules and regulations are to blame. Theresa may understood migration concerns, but EU membership R & Rs gave her no hope of changing anything as home secretary.
She has the support of the British people that she's willing to crash the whole damn system if necessary.
Depends on how much electoral support she has.
USA maybe because he's a fecking lunatic?
Yeah, I would probably agree, although at times it felt like the opposite of the other night which was pretty pro-labour.
Well recent history suggests any strike we make, be it as the aggressor or in revenge, would go in the direction of Florida. So I wouldn't be so quick to rule the USA out.
But it's a lie. The government have had full and total control over non-Eu immigration over the last 7 years. It's gone up...it's over 250000 by itself. If they really wanted to it could be 0 tomorrow.
What boils my piss is that tories get to be the party of big business and anti immigration without being held to account on the later. You can't be both.
In which Case Theresa May will double down and order extra trident attacks on the north of England just to help Donny get the job done.
Completely disagree, it's a waste of time. I'd much sooner hear about ideas behind countering home terrorism than dick measuring over nucleur weapons. Each to their own.
Anyone watching him play dodgeball with that question could tell that he was non comital to using it regardless of the situation.
Russia is back on the front foot internationally, not respecting borders or conventions. Our closest ally elected a crypto-facist last year. Our nearest neighbour had a facist come second in their presidential election just last month. Did you somehow miss these events?
The world is more dangerous now than at any time since the end of the Cold War, in my opinion. Things can go wrong so quickly, I'm nowhere near as confident as you that nuclear weapons won't be used in the near future. If things go very wrong for Trump, I'd give it a reasonable chance of happening in the next four years.
Applauding was pretty even to both I thought.
I'm so confused about this nuclear bomb question.
Who the hell are these countries that are imminently about to nuke us exactly? North Korea? Iran with their non existent nukes? Really? Are you kidding me?
Its funny that that guy talked about some crazy in Iran launching a nuke at us. Yet it wouldn't be basically insane to drop a nuke on residential areas in ?Pyongyang/ Beijing/ Washington/ Paris apparently in response to one of them firing a nuke at us? In some weird alternate reality?
Canada, Germany, Japan and just about every major economy other than a very small handful manage to get by without nukes and without this weird discussion about whether you'd be willing to hypothetically slaughter millions of innocent people.
Rather than issues that are actually affecting us in the UK?
Who the hell are these countries that are imminently about to nuke us exactly? North Korea? Iran with their non existent nukes? Really? Are you kidding me?
Its funny that that guy talked about some crazy in Iran launching a nuke at us. Yet it wouldn't be basically insane to drop a nuke on residential areas in ?Pyongyang/ Beijing/ Washington/ Paris apparently in response to one of them firing a nuke at us? In some weird alternate reality?
Canada, Germany, Japan and just about every major economy other than a very small handful manage to get by without nukes and without this weird discussion about whether you'd be willing to hypothetically slaughter millions of innocent people.
Rather than issues that are actually affecting us in the UK?
Did you regard the Cold War as dick measuring?
Depends if they prevent Tory gains I reckon.
My problem with the nuclear question was partly because it all felt very hypothetical and based in fantasy. What if questions should only really be asked if they're viable. I'm not sure a nuclear attack is particularly likely or a pertinent threat, and it felt like people making up stuff that's almost certainly not going to happen to question Corbyn on instead of focusing on issues that are key to the election.
So give students from 'poorer' backgrounds (I hope that doesn't sound too condescending) a rebate, not everyone.
Yes, that's The Telegraph's Tim Stanley