Search results

Fair point, though not remotely comparable in scale.

And that is even after keeping their borrowing 'down' by selling off every single thing the nation owned, from railways, to industries, phone companies, and every last council house.

Absolutely.

Thanks for the clarification. Point stands though - people who are (or in this case, were) attracted to this station, by the likes of Farage and Hopkins, are unlikely to be calling up their phone-ins to shower plaudits on a string of socialist proposals!

Thanks. Sounds lovely. Sign me up. (who wouldn't agree to that in principle - with none of the possible downsides spelled out?)

Haha. You think that the collective views, of a group of people, who choose to listen to a radio station that employs Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins, 'says it all'? Brilliant.

Certainly, the bulk of that 71% would not understand the workings of any viable scheme, nor probably would any of them claim to. You'd need to see the wording of the question for the results of that poll to mean anything at all. I'd guess that it was something very broad, like, "Do you agree or...

You really think that nursing in the NHS is such a glamorous, lucrative career, that thousands upon thousands of surplus kids are going to sign up for the ride? Well wide of the mark, I'd suggest. And as for the 'giving up' part - that can very easily be included within the contract / agreement...

I don't follow the distinction you are trying to make? Why do you think there ARE more banks? :shrug: Firstly, there's plenty of evidence to support the view that high take-up of third-level of education is overwhelmingly a good thing for a nation's economy. More specifically, who said...

Some very muddled thinking there. Proportionally, given the levels of taxes the two would be paying, it would mostly be the banker's taxes paying for both his and the binman's kids to go to Uni. And with the removal of fees, the binman's kids would be far more likely to go into third-level...