[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Jolly Red Giant]

The problem with many Labour supporters on the left-wing is that they dream of a world that was left
behind fifty years plus ago and is simply unattainable now.

Left-wing activists want to help build a socialist society - to get rid of capitalism that causes poverty, deprivation and war.

People have become selfish, society has become selfish, most politicians have become self-centered

People are no different than they have been for the past 250 years - struggling to survive in a world where profit trumps all - and at the same time demonstrating countless acts of co-operation, solidarity and charity.

and there is no place left for 'good of all' socialism because people ain't like that any more.

Yet a significant majority of the people in Britain support left policies.

And we won't turn back.

Fortunately you can only speak for yourself on that -

I'm no fan of the alternative believe me, but that's the way it is. If RLB gets the nod, I'm afraid people
will see this as a continuation of what has come before. Fine - but that won't win elections.

Working class people will decide what they want and who they want to represent them - Johnson's government, despite its majority, is a very weak government. In 1987 Thatcher won a second 'landslide' victory with a 102 seat majority - the Tory manifesto in 1987 contained a proposal for the poll tax and when Thatcher moved to implement it a couple of years later it brought the Tories to their knees - only for Kinnock and the future Blairites to had power on a platter back to Major in 1992. Johnson's Tories do not have anything approaching the support base that the Thatcher/Major Tories had - but going down the Blairite route again will once again hand power to the Tories on a platter.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Thanks for this insight Mike. However, it does assume that everything else stays in the same. When I become dictator of the UK and implement two-year degrees, things will be different.

Firstly, your analysis is based on there being the same number of students as there currently is. My thinking is based on some of those students going on vocational courses and some not going to university at all. While I agree that a system where only about 5% of kids (as was the case when I went) go to university is too low, it's swung too far the other way. I reckon that about 35% is about right. Thisa would mean that A Levels become rigorous - they should go back to the old system where a certain number had to fail and only a certain number could get an A.

Secondly, you're also assuming that the surrounding bureaucracy stays the same: in a two-year course, this could be considerably streamlined, for example, less tinkering by external examiners or more dependency on multiple choice (I get your point about dumbing down but weaker students have been sifted out at A Level).

There could also be recruitment of lecturers to make some weight of academic staff.

Finally, the use of MOOCs shouldn't be ignored, they could complement existing lectures, reducing workload of staff even further,

As an aside, does bad weather really cause lectures to be cancelled? I was at Bradford during the worst winter for 30 years and not a single lecture or seminar was cancelled. In fact, we stayed longer in the university than we had to as it was absolutely freezing at home!

Thanks for your thoughts, Max.

To start with your last question, the ;'snow fields of Kent in the late 80s shut down trains from Faversham for over a week and, without me, my classes can't run. Our timetables are so tight these days, and space limited, that any lecture or practical missed cannot be resheduled.

Back to the main stuff: if student numbers fall there may be scope for two year degrees, but I can't see the admin lessening (it has ramped up for me this year, with the responsibility of setting up an online assessment rubric transferring from support staff to me - and our system is not intuitive).

There are two reasons why I don't think student numbers will fall. First, it will be a brave government indeed who announces that university places are to be cut, reducing the opportunity for 'ordinary working people' to have their kids 'educated'. And how would it be done? By offering vocation courses? No, kids and parents will choose a degree if a degree is available. So places would need to be unilaterally cut.....

However (and second) the imperative in unis is the opposite. We are making more places available not fewer. In my division we have increased the intake into 'common year one' from 450 to 600. A massive increase. So, this year I had to give my two lectures on one first year course in the morning (9-11) AND again in the afternoon (2-4) to a split class owing to the lack of a 600 seater lecture theatre. At a different campus to my own (so that's the whole day gone).

Related to this, our Principle has deemed any course unviable if fewer than 30 students register. In the second and third years students get to select their courses (as opposed to the situation in common year one). My final year course caters for about 45 students so it is viable. For courses that are not, the staff member loses teaching hours if the course is closed. Unless they can make up those hours (how?) their job may be at risk.

If you are older and have a heavy teaching load (like me) your research is probably drying up so your employability is dependent on your teaching and admin hours. There are 1800 nominal hours in an academic's 'year'. For me 1300 or more are taken up by teaching and admin. I have been on a secret 'amber' list in the past so I am accumulating more teaching and admin hours. I am a long way from 'at risk'. But it is not in my interest to vote for a reduction in student numbers.

Indeed, you can see there is no incentive for the university itself to reduce student numbers, and we academics compete with one another to maintain our courses as 'viable' by being accessible and student-friendly.

None of this is compatible with two year degrees, albeit I can see my college offering them simply as a way of attracting yet more students (and central income from government).

One of my ex PhD students, one of the very laziest, walked into a lectureship at a former poly 'university' some years ago. They gave her £40K to start up a research lab. Within two years she had been promoted to senior lecturerer. She has yet to publish a single research paper (15 years later). She told me her academic colleagues are lazy and useless (compared with her). I absolutely dread to think what a load of half-baked rubbish is being taught there.

If I were in charge I would probably close 70% of UK universities since once you move away from the established ones, and start delving into the murky world of former polytechnics, you start to find abject shitness. It won't happen though because the system is rigged to make it look like every year more and more students are achieving better and better grades, consequently posting better and better approval scores, all this contributing to the amazing success story of higher education - that every aspirational parent wants a piece of. The genie is out of the bottle.

 

[Weststander]

I have not looked up the figures but in principle I believe you are correct. The VET and apprenticeships etc play a massive part of life here, from the electrician’s periodic need to learn and pass tests to keep their qualification current to the skilled and very skilled workforce. Two things which, imho prohibit this working in the U.K.

1) I am pretty certain having to take periodic exams would be resisted as “red-tape” etc.
2) For this two work you actually need a balanced economy with a strong engineering and manufacturing base. The U.K. doesn’t have this.

Cheers.
Your insights, beyond the myths, into German life are always interesting.

 

[BLOCK F]

I had no time for Benn as a labour MP. His own personal lurch to the left was vainglorious. Not a team player, and yet not a leader either. It isn't always the most important thing to show how clever and right you are.

I enjoyed his general affability and good sense (he deflated Richard Dawkins by cheerfully admitting, as an athiest, how much he liked Christmas, one time on the radio), but as a politician, he was deeply flawed.

I said from the off that all the left supporters will coalesce with whoever is left (in both senses) at the head to head, and Long Bailey will end up as leader since when the vote goes to the membership both momentum and all the £25 saboteurs (tories who plan to vote for the most unelectable candidate - like when Corbyn got the nod), she will vacuum up votes. If I'm proven wrong I'll be thrilled - but I'm not holding on to any hope.

Harry, Wilson wasn't so keen on Benn either, for the very reasons you mention.
You're not the former left-back signed from Burnley, but a reincarnation of Sir Harold, aren't you!

 

[Titanic]

http://camdennewjournal.com/article...bers-not-to-back-keir-starmers-leadership-bid

Camden Momentum urges Labour Party members not to back Keir Starmer’s leadership bid

With friends like this working for you locally who needs enemies?

The statement from Momentum said: “It has been clear to us for years that Starmer has been positioning himself to become leader of the Labour party. Now that he has launched his campaign, it’s equally clear he’s making an opportunistic tilt to the left – because he correctly perceives that the majority of the membership wants to continue what Jeremy Corbyn started. Starmer has hired some of Corbyn’s former advisers; at his campaign launch, he said that he doesn’t want to ‘trash’ Corbyn’s legacy as we ‘move forward’. But based on our experience, we do not trust him to follow through on these gestures and warm words.”

It added: “Leaving aside his public role in steering Labour towards the electorally disastrous People’s Vote campaign, he has not sought to engage with, encourage or welcome the left at the local level. In Holborn abd St Pancras, he has built a team around his that has worked tirelessly to marginalise the left within the CLP, yet he now calls for an end to ‘factionalism’. The fact that the CLP executive mooted to suspend constituency-level meetings during the leadership campaign suggests Starmer will hardly be a leader to empower or listen to the membership.”

 

[Weststander]

Left-wing activists want to help build a socialist society - to get rid of capitalism that causes poverty, deprivation and war.


People are no different than they have been for the past 250 years - struggling to survive in a world where profit trumps all - and at the same time demonstrating countless acts of co-operation, solidarity and charity.


Yet a significant majority of the people in Britain support left policies.


Fortunately you can only speak for yourself on that -


Working class people will decide what they want and who they want to represent them - Johnson's government, despite its majority, is a very weak government. In 1987 Thatcher won a second 'landslide' victory with a 102 seat majority - the Tory manifesto in 1987 contained a proposal for the poll tax and when Thatcher moved to implement it a couple of years later it brought the Tories to their knees - only for Kinnock and the future Blairites to had power on a platter back to Major in 1992. Johnson's Tories do not have anything approaching the support base that the Thatcher/Major Tories had - but going down the Blairite route again will once again hand power to the Tories on a platter.

Major didn’t have a strong government, did you live in the UK then?

Riddled with issues with day one eg the ERM fiasco and 5 years of bitter infighting from a powerful group of Euro Sceptics. Plus scandals and hypocrisy leading to many ministers having to resign.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

I like Emily . . . Just saying.

 

[Wardy's twin]

Thanks for your thoughts, Max.

To start with your last question, the ;'snow fields of Kent in the late 80s shut down trains from Faversham for over a week and, without me, my classes can't run. Our timetables are so tight these days, and space limited, that any lecture or practical missed cannot be resheduled.

Back to the main stuff: if student numbers fall there may be scope for two year degrees, but I can't see the admin lessening (it has ramped up for me this year, with the responsibility of setting up an online assessment rubric transferring from support staff to me - and our system is not intuitive).

There are two reasons why I don't think student numbers will fall. First, it will be a brave government indeed who announces that university places are to be cut, reducing the opportunity for 'ordinary working people' to have their kids 'educated'. And how would it be done? By offering vocation courses? No, kids and parents will choose a degree if a degree is available. So places would need to be unilaterally cut.....

However (and second) the imperative in unis is the opposite. We are making more places available not fewer. In my division we have increased the intake into 'common year one' from 450 to 600. A massive increase. So, this year I had to give my two lectures on one first year course in the morning (9-11) AND again in the afternoon (2-4) to a split class owing to the lack of a 600 seater lecture theatre. At a different campus to my own (so that's the whole day gone).

Related to this, our Principle has deemed any course unviable if fewer than 30 students register. In the second and third years students get to select their courses (as opposed to the situation in common year one). My final year course caters for about 45 students so it is viable. For courses that are not, the staff member loses teaching hours if the course is closed. Unless they can make up those hours (how?) their job may be at risk.

If you are older and have a heavy teaching load (like me) your research is probably drying up so your employability is dependent on your teaching and admin hours. There are 1800 nominal hours in an academic's 'year'. For me 1300 or more are taken up by teaching and admin. I have been on a secret 'amber' list in the past so I am accumulating more teaching and admin hours. I am a long way from 'at risk'. But it is not in my interest to vote for a reduction in student numbers.

Indeed, you can see there is no incentive for the university itself to reduce student numbers, and we academics compete with one another to maintain our courses as 'viable' by being accessible and student-friendly.

None of this is compatible with two year degrees, albeit I can see my college offering them simply as a way of attracting yet more students (and central income from government).

One of my ex PhD students, one of the very laziest, walked into a lectureship at a former poly 'university' some years ago. They gave her £40K to start up a research lab. Within two years she had been promoted to senior lecturerer. She has yet to publish a single research paper (15 years later). She told me her academic colleagues are lazy and useless (compared with her). I absolutely dread to think what a load of half-baked rubbish is being taught there.

If I were in charge I would probably close 70% of UK universities since once you move away from the established ones, and start delving into the murky world of former polytechnics, you start to find abject shitness. It won't happen though because the system is rigged to make it look like every year more and more students are achieving better and better grades, consequently posting better and better approval scores, all this contributing to the amazing success story of higher education - that every aspirational parent wants a piece of. The genie is out of the bottle.

If degrees were 2 years rather than 3 it would significantly reduce the debts incurred due to accommodation.

However as you say too many people with vested interests. But it would be better if degrees were more targeted on career or industrial requirements. My daughters partner is doing a cardiac physiology degree as part of job experience, he already has a sports science degree. Whilst the latter helps he could have done the cardiac degree only a d had less debt.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I agree she is the best candidate I have seen so far. I also think Boris would hate to face her in the Commons as he will come across as a posh bully.

I can't believe the members (I am not) would be daft enough to vote for RLB and more Corbynista ideology but watch this space..

Yep. I am convinced they will vote for RLB......

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Major didn’t have a strong government, did you live in the UK then?

Riddled with issues with day one eg the ERM fiasco and 5 years of bitter infighting from a powerful group of Euro Sceptics. Plus scandals and hypocrisy leading to many ministers having to resign.

And where did I say, imply or suggest that Major had a strong government?

I was making the point that when working class people brought the Tories to their knees, Kinnock and the future Blairites handed power on a platter back to the Tories by trying to be more tory than the Tories. Major's government were so mired in corruption that all Blair had to do to win the election in 1997 was to keep his mouth shut.

 

[Weststander]

I’m not disputing they have that pathway, but your percentages are wrong, twice as many students went to university as they did VET.

Only 32% of young Germans have a university degree, one of the lowest figures for developed countries. Contrast that a narrow majority of Brits.




See confirmatory post #1324 about the German way. 52% of Germans instead complete highly skilled vocational training in 326 professional trades. Explaining their sustained economic success and huge balance of payments surplus.

 

[drew]

And where did I say, imply or suggest that Major had a strong government?

I was making the point that when working class people brought the Tories to their knees, Kinnock and the future Blairites handed power on a platter back to the Tories by trying to be more tory than the Tories. Major's government were so mired in corruption that all Blair had to do to win the election in 1997 was to keep his mouth shut.

On what basis do you arrive at the conclusion that the 'working classes' brought the Major government to it's knees?

 

[Weststander]

On what basis do you arrive at the conclusion that the 'working classes' brought the Major government to it's knees?

I think John Redwood, Peter Bone, Bill Cash and Iain Duncan Smith achieved that.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

He isn't even a bit posh. His Dad was a toolmaker, his mother a nurse, and he went to a state Grammar school. What he has done is made the best of a brilliant mind, by working his way up through the law, became a QC, and then head of the CPS. His knighthood was nothing to do with cronyism but for his work with human rights.

The press try to make out that he's posh and it seems they are succeeding. Northern thickos don't like intelligent people who work their way up.

Oh I know what you mean but the press will spin that he has somehow turned his back on his working class roots.

 

[Weststander]

Oh I know what you mean but the press will spin that he has somehow turned his back on his working class roots.

Let’s worry about that in the future, counting our chickens.

Long-Bailey may well be the Leader.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

On what basis do you arrive at the conclusion that the 'working classes' brought the Major government to it's knees?

Indeed. One of the oddest comments I have seen on NSC for a long time.

 

[GT49er]

I think you've got Tony Benn's character spot on. That's how I viewed him too.
Oh, look. I've renounced my title.
Oh, look. I've renounced my double barrelled name.
Oh, look. I'm not Anthony, I'm Tony.

....plus:
Oh look, I know it'll see me vilified by 70% on NSC, but I'm campaigning against us joining the common market (aka - eventually - the EU).

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And where did I say, imply or suggest that Major had a strong government?

I was making the point that when working class people brought the Tories to their knees, Kinnock and the future Blairites handed power on a platter back to the Tories by trying to be more tory than the Tories. Major's government were so mired in corruption that all Blair had to do to win the election in 1997 was to keep his mouth shut.

Weird post. The middle class brought the Major government down, opting for Blair rather than 'back to basics' (while shagging my intern).

Kinnock was long gone when Blair won so not sure how Kinnock handed power back to the tories after Blair won. Blair went on to win two more GEs.

Blair did not try to be more tory than the tories. FFS. Neither did Kinnock. FFS.

Dismissing Blair's victory as doable by 'keeping his mouth shut' has some resonance (albeit Blair had value), but it also explains also how Boris won. Even easier for Boris, since Corbyn was by far and away more a massive useless unelectable clown than Major ever was (Major, who had, after all, been elected previously).

For an historian (published) you can be a bit peculiar some times .

 

[Weststander]

Weird post. The middle class brought the Major government down, opting for Blair rather than 'back to basics' (while shagging my intern).

Kinnock was long gone when Blair won so not sure how Kinnock handed power back to the tories after Blair won. Blair went on to win two more GEs.

Blair did not try to be more tory than the tories. FFS. Neither did Kinnock. FFS.

Dismissing Blair's victory as doable by 'keeping his mouth shut' has some resonance (albeit Blair had value), but it also explains also how Boris won. Even easier for Boris, since Corbyn was by far and away more a massive useless unelectable clown than Major ever was (Major, who had, after all, been elected previously).

For an historian (published) you can be a bit peculiar some times .

In fairness - I think JRG is claiming that that those despicable right-wing capitalists Kinnock, Smith, Dewar, Brown, Blair, Blunkett, Bryan Gould, Straw, Dobson and Beckett handed Major his 1992 victory. By being despicable right-wing capitalists, enemies of the very electable Derek Hatton and Militant.

Which is far fetched to say the least.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

In fairness - I think JRG is claiming that that those despicable right-wing capitalists Kinnock, Smith, Dewar, Brown, Blair, Blunkett, Bryan Gould, Straw, Dobson and Beckett handed Major his 1992 victory. By being despicable right-wing capitalists, enemies of the very electable Derek Hatton and Militant.

Which is far fetched to say the least.

Spare me your fairness