So how much did it cost...

GeorgeHowell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Paxman? Leftie?

First for everything I guess, and thats the first time I've heard him called that!

Maybe not but you've certainly heard of the BBC at large being called leftie. Pretty much everyone who counts there is left of centre politically. Anyone who did not conform was purged in the Blair era thanks to Mandelson's best efforts. Most are soft-left, of the Paxman, Humphries, Dimbleby variety, and so can come across as erudite, reasonable, and civilised to the naive and the unsuspecting.

GeorgeHowell

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Maybe Willetts is a leftie too, a secret closet leftie who just happens to masquerade as a giant neo-liberal cheerleader in a right wing government.

If this is a right wing government then I'd hate to see a left-wing one. I wonder what Clegg would make of that remark.

ruggedtoast

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

I thought Willetts would come up once Paxman was debunked -- a non-entity on the fringes of the cabinet who may well be pushed aside in the next reshuffle. You can always find somebody have written something to support almost any theory, however looney, be it flat earth, Elvis living on the Moon (where Apollo 11 never went), or George W Bush having engineered 9/11 for political purposes. I have yet to hear of anybody really credible from the older generation supporting this baby-boomer guilt nonsense.

Classic. Minister for Universities, Oxbridge graduate, Associate professor at Cass Business School.

Yes a real non entity, unlike George Howell, decorated internet warrior, Victoria Cross for being beastly to Graham.

Don't get me wrong, I condemn and denounce Willetts for his gleeful role in tuition fees, but one cannot discount his opinions.

GeorgeHowell

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Classic. Minister for Universities, Oxbridge graduate, Associate professor at Cass Business School.

Yes a real non entity, unlike George Howell, decorated internet warrior, Victoria Cross for being beastly to Graham.

Don't get me wrong, I condemn and denounce Willetts for his gleeful role in tuition fees, but one cannot discount his opinions.

All those academic qualifications do not make him sensible or correct. There are plenty of idiots around with lots of letters after their names.

Thanks for the puerile jibe, the more you do that the more desperate it shows you are becoming.

Tuition fees (and this is probably one of Willetts's guilt trips that explains the rubbish that he is now talking) were unfortunately necessary following Blair's ludicrous "inclusive" and "anti-elitist" higher education policy, implemented without having a clue how to pay for it.

Graham_Devon

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Maybe not but you've certainly heard of the BBC at large being called leftie. Pretty much everyone who counts there is left of centre politically. Anyone who did not conform was purged in the Blair era thanks to Mandelson's best efforts. Most are soft-left, of the Paxman, Humphries, Dimbleby variety, and so can come across as erudite, reasonable, and civilised to the naive and the unsuspecting.

Ok, so lets assume he is a leftie. Does this mean you (as a non leftie, one would assume) can simply write his views off as nonsense?

Appears the leftie bit is neither here nor there. Rather the person disagrees with your thoughts and therefore they are to be dismissed. Left, right, left of centre, centre, academic, non academic....doesn't really matter....as evidenced, you'll simply write them off as an idiot.

A._Badger

For the record, ol' 'two Brains' Willetts is roundly despised by the Tory Right as being what the divine Margaret referred to as 'a wet'.

GeorgeHowell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, so lets assume he is a leftie. Does this mean you (as a non leftie, one would assume) can simply write his views off as nonsense?

Appears the leftie bit is neither here nor there. Rather the person disagrees with your thoughts and therefore they are to be dismissed. Left, right, left of centre, centre, academic, non academic....doesn't really matter....as evidenced, you'll simply write them off as an idiot.

That of course is putting words in my mouth, in a court of law no doubt someone would (rightly) object to such a tactic.

As I indicated, I believe Paxman's type of soft left is driven in large part by guilt (as opposed to the Crowe/McCluskey hard-left which just wants to replace those in charge with themselves). Paxman & co have an agenda. Waffling on about baby-boomer guilt etc is another example of socialist thinking -- if one group is perceived to have an advantage over another, for whatever reason, then it has to be assumed to represent some kind of oppression, exploitation, or unfairness, and something must be done about it. The real world does not always fit that model.

Graham_Devon

A put down by Thatcher?

Boy, that's knocked him!

Graham_Devon

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

That of course is putting words in my mouth, in a court of law no doubt someone would (rightly) object to such a tactic.

Court of law eh? After referring to me as an idiot and a plank, isn't that a bit rich?

Just saying what I see. You haven't tried to argue against what Paxman and Willits have said, just attempted to instantly dismiss their views wer more insults and put downs.

ukcarper

Not sure about all this leftie stuff but I have seen not proof that boomers were any more selfish than any other generation. As for Willett or Paxman their opinions are just that opinions not facts.