great policyMothers will be given maternity pay for a full year after the birth of their children and all employees will have a right to work flexibly as part of a Labour manifesto pledge to improve life for parents.
Dawn Butler, Labour’s shadow women and equalities secretary, said she wanted to see a “step change in how women are treated at work”, which would be reflected in the party’s manifesto when it is published in a few weeks’ time
Butler said all large employers, under Labour’s proposals, would be forced to introduce a menopause workplace policy to break the stigma associated with it and pledged to do more to tackle sexual harassment in the workplace.
To target the pay gap specifically wouldn't it be better to label this as parents maternity/paternity time rather than mothers? My understanding is this is what they're doing with the application of the policy, but they should name it as such to encourage more men to take the time off.
This is categorically not true, universities hate it, students are put off by the debt and the reason universities were for the middle class is because secondary education failed the poorer students.Tuition fees are the most misunderstood policy of the last decade. Tuition fees are a good thing. Tuition fees allow poor people to go to university. And if they don't end up making a decent living, they don't have to pay it back. Take tuition fees away, there are less places available and poor people won;t get them. Before tuition fees university was mostly for the middle class.
Just to add to this now I'm at a computer, I would say there are three main components at work here:This is categorically not true, universities hate it, students are put off by the debt and the reason universities were for the middle class is because secondary education failed the poorer students.
Tuition fees have ruined departments and the viability of courses that don't pull in big numbers, it made higher education a meat market.
These are the kinds of myths that show the politically and economically illiteracy of the British population.
Neoliberalism is neoliberalism, whatever the minor differences in flavour.
Or, as Thatcher reportedly once said, her greatest success was 'New Labour - we forced our opponents to change their minds.'Neoliberalism is neoliberalism, whatever the minor differences in flavour.
Cameron considered himself the "heir to Blair", Blair himself said he would have made public sector cuts from 2010 onwards (theoretically would have done austerity similar to the Coalition). New Labour carried on the work of previous Tory Governments in increasing the marketisation of society and letting the private sector feast on public services and cushy Government contracts.
The current housing crisis was brewing under New Labour and summarily failed to be addressed in time, same with its successor in the Coalition, and the Conservative Government after that. New Labour set up the infamous Yarls Wood immigration centre (with a string of controversies including deaths and sexual assault), the Coalition had the Hostile Environment policy. New Labour had a huge authoritarian bent that the Coalition were happy to continue, bar scrapping ID cards. The comparisons go on.
Some of the detail is different and they're obviously not completely 1:1, but the Coalition in many respects just supercharged what New Labour were already doing... who in turn just supercharged what previous Tory Governments were doing.
We live in a world created by concurrent failures, of Governments of all colours, but largely following neoliberal dogma. Thatcherite Tories, New Labour and orange booker Lib Dems all incorporate it in varying degrees.
From what I've heard in and around the sector this might all be true, but there's still a sense of "where does the money come from otherwise" when fees are abolished. Tbh to me it sounded just like resistance to more change, although I imagine HE has a lot more problems than just the finances question.Just to add to this now I'm at a computer, I would say there are three main components at work here:
There's been a policy shift over the last three decades to get more people into university. This has moved in parallel to the raising of job requirements from A levels/school leavers to graduate degrees for a lot of jobs. It's hard to say if one caused the other because it roughly happened at the same time but regardless there's been a political will to increase the numbers of people going to university.
Tuition fees have had a very negative impact on university financials. Since the switch, the focus of universities have gone from trying to offer as broad a selection of courses as possible to chasing the trends in industry and academia. This means that courses are justified by the numbers of students that can be accommodated and not by the strengths of the staff or the university. A lot of people confuse this with the notion that 'useless' degrees have been cut (though I'd argue there's no such thing as a useless degree), so let me give you an example. I left school in 2004 and at the time my interests were in Chemistry. However, back then Chemistry was one of the courses that universities had placed under review because of a combination of the costs of offering the course (due to the need for labs, materials, etc) and the relatively small numbers of students compared to engineering courses.
Universities saw Chemistry as a risk because tuition fees meant that they couldn't justify running as comprehensive a programme as engineering or business subjects had a better return. This also has the effect of dissuading school students from taking up Chemistry, which makes it more difficult for schools to justify running expensive Chemistry courses. I don't think anyone can argue that of all courses Chemistry has no value. A good Chemistry course used to be a barometer of the quality of an institution but now it's struggling to be justified in this age of student numbers (for example).
Adminstrative pressures means finding enough staff to cover the courses offered. When tuition fees came in, two major changes happened - staff were asked to teach courses that weren't in their field of specialisation and the market put pressure on new academics to specialise in areas that would receive the best chance of funding/availability of research students. This ends up being a negative feedback loop for courses that lack popularity, since the quality and number of staff drops, universities are loathe to fund them and then students are put off by the lack of opportunities - hence fewer graduates becoming future staff.
Academia is absolutely one sector of society that should not be put under industry and economic pressure because the overall benefits to society outweigh the costs. Regardless of what you think are relevant and important courses, an enlightened and education society should have experts in every field possible - it's hard to anticipate the kind of skills and insights you need in the future, particularly when it comes to changing social and technological landscapes. It's also important not to view subjects with a narrow field of what it is and not what it offers. There are plenty of disciplines that are looked down on by the wider public because of the lack of perceived utility but that does those people a massive disservice. These courses are rigorous and can always lead to new ways of thinking or collaborations across disciplines to help further develop more established or more popular specialisations.
For example, the rise of big data analytics has meant that disciplines have to collaborate in order to cover the requirements of development this new area of research and industry. It's far too big for any one discipline due to the intensive requirements of industrial knowledge and analytical behaviours.
By bringing in tuition fees, universities are forced to consider every prospective student as a customer and a revenue generator. This also has the effect of swamping the market with graduates in specific fields regardless of whether there is a long term future for these students. It also means that staff are encouraged to develop research proposals in these fields and narrowing the scope for developing new industries or ideas in the future.
Academics have been fighting this for years but unfortunately too many people bought into the concept that students paying their own way will be less of a burden on the taxpayer (it isn't) and is somehow more efficient (it definitely isn't).
It's pretty much like that bullshit of the government budget being like a household credit card and because people like to think they're clever too, they bought into that without any critical thinking whatsoever.
I haven't touched on the real point which is that people need to stop assuming that higher education can be worthless and should respect the academic endeavours of anyone who goes to university. And more importantly that not everyone should go to uni and incur thousands of pounds worth of debt in order to do a job they could've done straight out of A levels.
The real solution is to get rid of tuition fees, make university free for everyone, not just school leavers and make secondary education more robust so that those who don't want to go to uni at 18 don't have to and can work a decent job before deciding years down the line that they want to go to university after all.
This is the problem when trying to look at a nation's finances through the lens of profit and loss. One of the things developing countries focus on is higher education, they will start off with programmes to send their best and brightest abroad to earn masters and PhDs and then they come back and work in universities and research centres to help the next generation. It's very much an investment in the future, that's why education as a sector has to be state funded to ensure that the UK is always one of the leaders in teaching and research.From what I've heard in and around the sector this might all be true, but there's still a sense of "where does the money come from otherwise" when fees are abolished. Tbh to me it sounded just like resistance to more change, although I imagine HE has a lot more problems than just the finances question.
Of the traditional broadcasters only Sky have went with it. The BBC and ITV seem to be avoiding it like the plague.Cant beat how bad 2017 was they said. They are speed running this shit.
Cheers for the morning online headlines bojo. Cheers for trashing you deal that *checks notes* has 20% popularity to begin with.
That video is starting to blow up online,haha. Going up to a million views over night.
His comments are fucking PRIME material to trash the tories with.
But that's useless without seeing how the odds have changed :(
You had a couple of loons but nothing too egregious. There was a classic moment when that human doorstop Kirsten Hair said Boris Johnson cares about Scotland and the audience just started laughing at her.
Lol her face is a picture. The SNP couldn't have wished for a better clip.You had a couple of loons but nothing too egregious. There was a classic moment when that human doorstop Kirsten Hair said Boris Johnson cares about Scotland and the audience just started laughing at her.
And an other moment where a Jewish person didn't think Corbyn was a member of the Waffen SS which basically broke poor Kirsten
The problem they'd have with that is the worst quote is the a pound in Croydon is better spent than a pound in Strathclyde which is a difficult one to use in the borders or Aberdeen where the reaction of the locals might be "maybe". Never underestimate the central belt dislike up north or in the borders, they basically view the central belt in the same way people in the North of England view London.
That's true, sometimes I forget that dynamic exists up north aswell as the borders.The problem they'd have with that is the worst quote is the a pound in Croydon is better spent than a pound in Strathclyde which is a difficult one to use in the borders or Aberdeen where the reaction of the locals might be "maybe". Never underestimate the central belt dislike up north or in the borders, they basically view the central belt in the same way people in the North of England view London.
There are multiple posters in here who will tell you the polls are useless as well...
Not really, they also factor in how much money is being spent on each option. The more money spent on hung parliament, the shorter the odds.
of course, but they hedge their bets (I.e lay against the result) when a large amount of money comes in, but that does make the result more likely, they will have their own internal data they will trust far more than money on this sort of event.
There are useful as metric of change. If the same pollster identifies changes in opinion in the same direction over three or more polls, then you get sense of which parties are cutting through. If different pollsters identify the same changes, that impression solidifies. It might not tell you who is going to win because they might not have the right model to begin with but you can see how things change, which is useful.
I'll concede to you. I'm no gambler to be honest.of course, but they hedge their bets (I.e lay against the result) when a large amount of money comes in, but that does make the result more likely, they will have their own internal data they will trust far more than money on this sort of event.
Horse racing can happen how you say when a trainers yard sends the fix in for a race, but the amount of money required to move the odds in an election would be quite a lot...
This is where fake news can make people money, something happens on social media etc, the last election a rumour came out Rudd had lost her seat, odds crashed, a lot of people lost quite a bit of money
Fish for sale, fish for sale.
Can't see the Tories winning that one, even if Labour ship boatloads of votes to the LDs, one of other of those parties will still be ahead of the Tories. Boris would need at least a seven point swing to Conservative as well as a big swing from Labour to LD. The latter may happen but I can't see where the extra Tory votes are coming from.
The SNP seem strangely listless, I'm in a seat they lost in 2017 and they've just not been active. Labour have been to the door and even the Tories have posted shit (and they've got no chance)Fish for sale, fish for sale.
Anyone think the SNP narrative isn't a sure fire winner? It didn't really work last time, circumstances have changed but I don't think people are that certain to vote on an independence ticket. That aside SNP aren't faultless, I feel like they are taking a lot for granted in this election with Brexit, Westminster this, Trump that, Tory this even if there is a lot of truth to it. Maybe it will improve over the next few weeks.