Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I was sitting in my kitchen this afternoon, reading the papers and munching on a succulent clementine satsuma and it occurred to me how privileged I am, and indeed wealthy, compared to someone sitting in their kitchen in 1949.

    In 1949, for the average working family, eating a satsuma was a wondrous treat, perhaps only done once a year; working class families often gave their children as their Christmas present a piece of fruit. For your average working man, a satsuma was an expensive indulgence, it would cost as much perhaps as much as a few packets of cigarettes (for comparison, imagine it cost 15 pounds in today's money)

    On the other hand, today I can pick up a whole bag of clementines for a couple of pounds. Indeed, I can easily purchase more clementines than I care to eat, and it a very low price. That my fellow TSRians is true wealth; or rather, it's a true increase in wealth.

    Another example is when my Mum first moved from Australia to the UK as an adult in her early 20s (she was born here, then the family moved to Australia), she could usually afford to make one international long-distance call home a month. It was astoundingly expensive, the lines were often fuzzy (they were passed over communications satellites) and they had to be short and sweet. Now, I can call home to my Mum, or anyone, on Skype, with full view of one another, for nothing. I call that a true increase in wealth / living standard.

    If an average working man of the 1940s were to peer into my life today, he would think in some ways I live the life of a millionaire of his day. In fact, I can do and enjoy many things a millionaire of his day could not (my access to general open-source information, for example, exceeds that of any man in 1949 in terms of speed of provision and volume). The average person today is healthier, freer, longer lived, better clothed, better housed, better educated and safer.

    When you look at many aspects of our lives today, our society and political structure (social democratic capitalism; a free market consensually saddled by a safety net and regulatory oversight) has delivered astounding increases in the wealth. The material comforts of the average person today would suggest that the aims of the politicians of decades ago were, on the whole, successful; they created a remarkable society, much more comfortable, tolerant, peaceful and free than 'ere it was. I do believe that inequality and wealth gaps are important, but it does bear thinking about the absolute increases in the material wealth and comfort of the ordinary person.

    I say this to attempt to give some perspective to the people who moan that all politicians are completely corrupt and incompetent, that everything is awful and everyone is part of a conspiracy. In actual fact, the society the politicians of the 50s, 60s and 70s promised us (as far as the conditions of the average man, or average family) has been fulfilled. The important thing now is to recognise what a remarkable and precious society we have created, and ensure we can both conserve what we have now and continue to evolve in the way that has brought us such prosperity, safety, comfort and freedom.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You've made several valid points here.

    Individual as well as societal wealth has improved dramatically.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You've made several valid points here.

    Individual as well as societal wealth has improved dramatically.
    Wow, impressive analysis there.

    Edit: For other TSRians reading this, I'm not just being a ****. MatureStudent almost always calls other people idiots when he disagrees with them, and finds it impossible to conceptualise the idea that other people could look at the same set of facts and legitimately come to a different conclusion. I'm just throwing his own attitude back at him
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Wow, impressive analysis there.

    Edit: For other TSRians reading this, I'm not just being a ****. MatureStudent almost always calls other people idiots when he disagrees with them, and finds it impossible to conceptualise the idea that other people could look at the same set of facts and legitimately come to a different conclusion. I'm just throwing his own attitude back at him
    I use the word 'useful idiot' for people who hold cliched viewpoints.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I use the word 'useful idiot' for people who hold cliched viewpoints.
    That's not what useful idiot means.

    A useful idiot is what Lenin called social democrats and left liberals who fell for communist propaganda and could be easily manipulated (for example, in the later cold war it could be applied to CND types who believed Soviet propaganda about their peaceful intentions and tried to obstruct deployment of land-based cruise missiles.)

    What you seem to have difficulty with is accepting that other people can look at the same set of facts and legitimately come to a different opinion to you. If you have difficulty with that, then it might be better simply not to put your hand up for a debate when you're simply interested in hurling insults and implying that someone is too stupid to understand the issue

    There is no reason why I shouldn't hold the position that if the Scots want devo-max, they should have it.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    So in this world of bountiful wealth, where you claim we can get more clementines than one could possibly eat are so many people starving to death? Why are so many people forced into crime in order to avoid destitution?

    Sure, the world could be described as a better place now than 50 years ago, but to make out that its all sunny, fair weather and picnics is just plain ridiculous.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    A true so called middle class muppet.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    A true so called middle class muppet.
    Do you have any substantive viewpoint to offer? Or is it limited to, "I don't know why, but I don't like it"?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    A true so called middle class muppet.
    Why is it so different for the working classes?

    I remember the estate I grew up (mining community) very few people could afford cars. After thatcher ripped the heart out of it car ownership, life expectancy and foreign holidays went up.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    So in this world of bountiful wealth, where you claim we can get more clementines than one could possibly eat are so many people starving to death? Why are so many people forced into crime in order to avoid destitution?
    We (the UK electorate) cannot be held responsible for what happens outside our borders; we can only be legitimately held responsible for the health and welfare of our own people, and as far as that goes, we have achieved much.

    While I know the issue is not this simple, I would say that if you are working class and determined and willing to work as hard as you need to (and you have the talent), there is no reason why the son of a factory worker can't make it to Oxford (and some do). Our system of welfare provides enough for a family of limited means to live in frugal comfort and to have access to all they need (education, training, healthcare) to improve their lives.

    Sure, the world could be described as a better place now than 50 years ago, but to make out that its all sunny, fair weather and picnics is just plain ridiculous.
    I'm not speaking of the world so much as I'm speaking of Britain. We have achieved extraordinary things in this country, our people enjoy a high standard of living both globally and historically speaking.

    Of course I believe there's far more to do; I wouldn't be a social democrat if I didn't believe that. But I also think one cannot have an accurate understanding of what to do next if they do not possess an accurate understanding of what we have achieved thus far.

    I agree not everything is rainbows and sunshine, but actually things in Britain aren't that bad at all, and it behooves us to give credit where it's due
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saayagain)
    A true so called middle class muppet.
    By the way, you're a UKIP supporter, right?

    What exactly is your grievance against British society?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    That's not what useful idiot means.

    A useful idiot is what Lenin called...
    No, thats what you use the term for.

    People can use the term however they like.

    I think someone who mispriced a bottle of Rosebank 21 to 2/3rds its RRP was a useful idiot. As was the person who bought a bottle of 200ml Port Ellen special release at a price more akin to that of a 700ml bottle. Both useful idiots to me.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    That my fellow TSRians is true wealth; or rather, it's a true increase in wealth.

    The average person today is healthier, freer, longer lived, better clothed, better housed, better educated and safer.
    Satsumas are not true health, happiness is true wealth.

    Is the average person today any happier than in 1949?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by young_guns)
    OP
    This

    What we observe and what people ignore is that there aren't really that many people who are going to be truly "poor", these days a "poor" person will be somebody who has a standard of living (or quality of life, never can remember which way round they are) lower than the average person, or at the level of some time in the past.

    The majority of the time, wages grow quite a bit faster than inflation, or at least compounded over several years or decades substantially higher. What we see now is the government being attacked because that long term trend isn't holding over the short term, but that's irrelevant.

    Yes, there are some expenses that go up out of our control, the likes of bills and, where applicable, rent, but for the most part we are better off than our parents and grandparents.

    More than once my father has said about how when he was at school there was only one person in the entire school who had been on holiday abroad, compare that to today when what? 50%, 60%, 75% of people have? Back then it cost hundreds, and now it costs <£100, and easily done within a couple of hundred for a weekend or something, and those few hundred are worth a lot less. You would get very few children who would get new bags and clothes over summer, now a hell of a lot do.

    When he started work there were something like 8000 people working there. A small car park for maybe a couple of hundred cars, owed by those at the very top, and about 50 buses in and out every day for the majority of workers, buy the time he left a decade or so later there were two buses and a multistory car park because by then wages had gone up enough and car prices, at least relatively, had come down enough that the majority of people either owned a car or could car pool. And then you got it that those at the very top would be some of the select few rich people that would have a mobile phone, rather large ones, and now these days almost every adult has one, and far too many children have phones worth hundreds.

    A decade, maybe a bit longer really, not that many people had access to the internet, and most of those who did barely touched it. I can't particularly remember it, but my sister does, and we had to basically know before connecting what we wanted to find out and do it as efficiently as possible because the data costs were rather high, and back in the dial-up days where the max speed was what? 76kbps or something like that, and now most people have cheap access to the internet, with no cap on data for a couple of hundred quid a year and up to gigabit speeds.

    A couple of years ago 4k TVs were tens of thousands of pounds and only the very rich could have them, by the end of the decade they will be really affordable and, let's be honest, most people will probably have one; just the same as with LCD TVs taking over from CRT, and 16:9 (or 8:5) widescreen instead of 4:3.

    --------------------

    Of course, the downside of some of this, particularly the internet, is the dissemination of knowledge, well, no, that's a good thing, more the harsh realities and truths of the world and above a lot of things, terrorism. A lot of this tech makes terrorism worse because terrorists now know that they have more power than ever before to spread their message of hate, while in the past they could in theory do something, but the knowledge of the act would spread slowly, perhaps being somewhat censored by the media and governments, now that's impossible.

    -------------------

    To say that over the last 5 years people are worse off is, questionable. Yes, relative to 5 years ago a lot of people aren't better off, but they're perhaps setting their benchmark a little bit too high.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    This

    What we observe and what people ignore is that there aren't really that many people who are going to be truly "poor", these days a "poor" person will be somebody who has a standard of living (or quality of life, never can remember which way round they are) lower than the average person, or at the level of some time in the past.

    The majority of the time, wages grow quite a bit faster than inflation, or at least compounded over several years or decades substantially higher. What we see now is the government being attacked because that long term trend isn't holding over the short term, but that's irrelevant.

    Yes, there are some expenses that go up out of our control, the likes of bills and, where applicable, rent, but for the most part we are better off than our parents and grandparents.

    More than once my father has said about how when he was at school there was only one person in the entire school who had been on holiday abroad, compare that to today when what? 50%, 60%, 75% of people have? Back then it cost hundreds, and now it costs <£100, and easily done within a couple of hundred for a weekend or something, and those few hundred are worth a lot less. You would get very few children who would get new bags and clothes over summer, now a hell of a lot do.

    When he started work there were something like 8000 people working there. A small car park for maybe a couple of hundred cars, owed by those at the very top, and about 50 buses in and out every day for the majority of workers, buy the time he left a decade or so later there were two buses and a multistory car park because by then wages had gone up enough and car prices, at least relatively, had come down enough that the majority of people either owned a car or could car pool. And then you got it that those at the very top would be some of the select few rich people that would have a mobile phone, rather large ones, and now these days almost every adult has one, and far too many children have phones worth hundreds.

    A decade, maybe a bit longer really, not that many people had access to the internet, and most of those who did barely touched it. I can't particularly remember it, but my sister does, and we had to basically know before connecting what we wanted to find out and do it as efficiently as possible because the data costs were rather high, and back in the dial-up days where the max speed was what? 76kbps or something like that, and now most people have cheap access to the internet, with no cap on data for a couple of hundred quid a year and up to gigabit speeds.

    A couple of years ago 4k TVs were tens of thousands of pounds and only the very rich could have them, by the end of the decade they will be really affordable and, let's be honest, most people will probably have one; just the same as with LCD TVs taking over from CRT, and 16:9 (or 8:5) widescreen instead of 4:3.

    --------------------

    Of course, the downside of some of this, particularly the internet, is the dissemination of knowledge, well, no, that's a good thing, more the harsh realities and truths of the world and above a lot of things, terrorism. A lot of this tech makes terrorism worse because terrorists now know that they have more power than ever before to spread their message of hate, while in the past they could in theory do something, but the knowledge of the act would spread slowly, perhaps being somewhat censored by the media and governments, now that's impossible.

    -------------------

    To say that over the last 5 years people are worse off is, questionable. Yes, relative to 5 years ago a lot of people aren't better off, but they're perhaps setting their benchmark a little bit too high.
    Yes, although the one aspect you miss is that a large majority of the previous generation and the one before that were able to purchase their own house. Very few in our generation will be able to do that. And that's quite a big thing in terms of setting the standards for the future of your standard of living which is why I bring it up. If you can never buy your own place, you're constantly renting at a heavy rate your whole life and have no asset (wealth) at the time of it. Therefore, in absolute wealth terms our generation will be worse off than the previous.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    This

    What we observe and what people ignore is that there aren't really that many people who are going to be truly "poor", these days a "poor" person will be somebody who has a standard of living (or quality of life, never can remember which way round they are) lower than the average person, or at the level of some time in the past.

    The majority of the time, wages grow quite a bit faster than inflation, or at least compounded over several years or decades substantially higher. What we see now is the government being attacked because that long term trend isn't holding over the short term, but that's irrelevant.

    Yes, there are some expenses that go up out of our control, the likes of bills and, where applicable, rent, but for the most part we are better off than our parents and grandparents.

    More than once my father has said about how when he was at school there was only one person in the entire school who had been on holiday abroad, compare that to today when what? 50%, 60%, 75% of people have? Back then it cost hundreds, and now it costs <£100, and easily done within a couple of hundred for a weekend or something, and those few hundred are worth a lot less. You would get very few children who would get new bags and clothes over summer, now a hell of a lot do.

    When he started work there were something like 8000 people working there. A small car park for maybe a couple of hundred cars, owed by those at the very top, and about 50 buses in and out every day for the majority of workers, buy the time he left a decade or so later there were two buses and a multistory car park because by then wages had gone up enough and car prices, at least relatively, had come down enough that the majority of people either owned a car or could car pool. And then you got it that those at the very top would be some of the select few rich people that would have a mobile phone, rather large ones, and now these days almost every adult has one, and far too many children have phones worth hundreds.

    A decade, maybe a bit longer really, not that many people had access to the internet, and most of those who did barely touched it. I can't particularly remember it, but my sister does, and we had to basically know before connecting what we wanted to find out and do it as efficiently as possible because the data costs were rather high, and back in the dial-up days where the max speed was what? 76kbps or something like that, and now most people have cheap access to the internet, with no cap on data for a couple of hundred quid a year and up to gigabit speeds.

    A couple of years ago 4k TVs were tens of thousands of pounds and only the very rich could have them, by the end of the decade they will be really affordable and, let's be honest, most people will probably have one; just the same as with LCD TVs taking over from CRT, and 16:9 (or 8:5) widescreen instead of 4:3.

    --------------------

    Of course, the downside of some of this, particularly the internet, is the dissemination of knowledge, well, no, that's a good thing, more the harsh realities and truths of the world and above a lot of things, terrorism. A lot of this tech makes terrorism worse because terrorists now know that they have more power than ever before to spread their message of hate, while in the past they could in theory do something, but the knowledge of the act would spread slowly, perhaps being somewhat censored by the media and governments, now that's impossible.

    -------------------

    To say that over the last 5 years people are worse off is, questionable. Yes, relative to 5 years ago a lot of people aren't better off, but they're perhaps setting their benchmark a little bit too high.
    Standard of living and wealth aren't the same though.

    Henry VIII had no car, no interwebs (not even 56kbps), never went to the USA or had a flatscreen TV.

    I suspect he was wealthier than me though.

    I'm not really sure what the OP's point is....

    We have better lives now? I don't think so, we just have different stuff around us.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will2348)
    Yes, although the one aspect you miss is that a large majority of the previous generation and the one before that were able to purchase their own house. Very few in our generation will be able to do that. And that's quite a big thing in terms of setting the standards for the future of your standard of living which is why I bring it up. If you can never buy your own place, you're constantly renting at a heavy rate your whole life and have no asset (wealth) at the time of it. Therefore, in absolute wealth terms our generation will be worse off than the previous.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Very few? What proportion?

    I did it before 30, nearly a year later today I was thinking about another (now Barclays 10 year fix is under 10%). I suspect in 20-30 years time I'll inherit a house and enough money to buy another outright. Unless people die before their parents, a substantial majority will be home owners before they retire.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quady)
    Standard of living and wealth aren't the same though.

    Henry VIII had no car, no interwebs (not even 56kbps), never went to the USA or had a flatscreen TV.

    I suspect he was wealthier than me though.

    I'm not really sure what the OP's point is....

    We have better lives now? I don't think so, we just have different stuff around us.
    If you give the choice to everybody, at least our generation, live things as they are now, or the equivalent place in society 10 years ago, 25, 50, 100, etc I expect most would want to stay now. And Henry VIII is a stupid comparison to make unless you're comparing him to HRH Queen Elizabeth II.

    And it all really depends how you define better, undoubtedly we have a more convenient life, you want to find something out, you google it, you don't have to go to a library or university to find out; want to contact somebody, call them, either voice or video, text them, use some other IM, email them etc; want to get from A to B, get in the car YOU own when YOU want, rather than having to use a bus or walk, or not go, and get there quickly; want to get across the Atlantic? few hours on a plane, not a few days (or weeks) on a boat, or, even more drastic, across Europe.

    We get paid more, and that pay has increased ahead of inflation so in real terms we are financially better off, it gives us more disposable income and, along with advnacing technology bringing prices down, allows us to get more.

    I think a bit of refinement is needed on the TVs since we also have more TVs per household since many will have several, people will have a communal one and one in their room, and maybe several in bedrooms.


    (Original post by will2348)
    Yes, although the one aspect you miss is that a large majority of the previous generation and the one before that were able to purchase their own house. Very few in our generation will be able to do that. And that's quite a big thing in terms of setting the standards for the future of your standard of living which is why I bring it up. If you can never buy your own place, you're constantly renting at a heavy rate your whole life and have no asset (wealth) at the time of it. Therefore, in absolute wealth terms our generation will be worse off than the previous.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Interesting thought, but with a bit of thought things may not be that bad, not for the slightly less worse off at least, since in the long run, obviously it depends on the exact figures, rent doesn't necessarily run that much higher than outright ownership, but then when you consider that you may live with your parents until you're in your 20s, then you go and live independently, and then at some point later in life, if you don't already have a property, you may inherit one, whether that be from parents or I suppose in theory grandparents. Then you always get this perpetual claim that the ballooning house prices must stop at some point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Things have certainly become more modernized, but i'm not so sure you can say we're all 'richer'.
    The system we have massively favours those at the top, at the expense of everyone else.
    I've mentioned it before but this is a society which is designed to make the rich and powerful, more rich and powerful. Then those same people will tell you 'you can't change it'.

    We have a society where Chief Executives get a 21% pay rise and nurses who perform admirable roles, work long hours, fly over to Africa and put themselves at risk to help others get a 1% pay rise.

    A society where we focus all our attention and hate on people abusing the system at the bottom yet continue to allow tax evasion and tax avoidance at the top. In fact you even have some of the main culprits funding our main political parties.

    We have a society which allows people such as Jonny Nash to donate money to the Tories and then get favourable healthcare legislation and a society where Bernie Eccelstone donated money to Blair, and was allowed to have cigarettes advertise at F1, even though it was 'banned' from all sports.

    A society where corporations pay zero percent tax and then put their workers on zero hour contracts.
    A society where a million use a food bank and bankers get huge bonuses.

    We have people calling for disability benefits to be cut and as there's no money left and at the same time calling for taxes to be cut at the top and a society where we don't mind removing housing benefits sharply and throwing people onto the streets while at the same time shrieking of taxing a small amount on those who live in mansions.

    We believe in social mobility, but this country is far from a meritocracy, if you're rich the chances were that you were born rich and if you're born poor, the chances are you'll stay poor. Yes some people climb the ladder, but they're few and far between and quite often, they pull the ladder up after themselves. Look at colleges such as Oxford and Cambridge. Overwhelmingly dominated by private school and public school kids from privileged backgrounds, these are the same guy who'll go on to be our politicians and the business leaders of the future.
    We have a government full of millionaires, cutting public services and benefits and then having the audacity to claim 'we're all in this together'.


    Look at the Tory and Labour front benches, how many went to Oxbridge? How many didn't?


    This isn't a party partisan rant. Yes we've overall become wealthier as a society but that wealth is still firmly and almost exclusively enjoyed and controlled by a few.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Things have certainly become more modernized, but i'm not so sure you can say we're all 'richer'.
    Over the last century, in real terms, average wages have grown 400%, so yes, the average person is and I should think there are VERY few people who aren't, it only breaks down when you start looiking at trivially short periods of time to try to make an argument to the contrary, an insignificant amount of time.

    We have a society where Chief Executives get a 21% pay rise and nurses who perform admirable roles, work long hours, fly over to Africa and put themselves at risk to help others get a 1% pay rise.
    As said elsewhere, that's private vs public for you. Tell me, are these executives in the NHS? Or even in the public sector? No? Then it's not a very good example, is it. What are the NHS Execs getting? There is a distinct difference here, the Execs getting that 21% (and is that p/a or have you combined several years together to get that, never asked) will I expect be in a business turning a profit, maybe billions, not one that's losing money hand over fist, tens of billions p/a. Yes, you might get that the people at the bottom of that business are only getting 2%, but that's a totally different claim.

    A society where we focus all our attention and hate on people abusing the system at the bottom yet continue to allow tax evasion and tax avoidance at the top. In fact you even have some of the main culprits funding our main political parties.
    Questionable, it's more fair to say that when the bottom is targeted people make a fuss, when the top is targeted people just ignore it

    We have a society which allows people such as Jonny Nash to donate money to the Tories and then get favourable healthcare legislation and a society where Bernie Eccelstone donated money to Blair, and was allowed to have cigarettes advertise at F1, even though it was 'banned' from all sports.
    With the latter, is that ban global or just in the UK, because if global you want to be looking for a FIA bribe, and even then he would still be getting done by do-gooders.

    ...if you're born poor, the chances are you'll stay poor. Yes some people climb the ladder, but they're few and far between...
    Actually, if you put the effort in, you have pretty good chances, obviously you still need the ability in the first place, but being poor isn't necessarily a condemnation to stay poor.

    Look at the Tory and Labour front benches, how many went to Oxbridge? How many didn't?
    Well, let's take a look at the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet:
    Cabinet:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    PM-DC-Oxford (PPE)
    DPM-Clegg-Cambridge (among others)
    Hague-Oxford
    Osborne-Oxford
    May-Oxford (Eww, geography)
    Hammond-Oxford
    Grayling-Cambridge
    Fallon-St Andrews
    Cable-Cambridge (and Glasgow)
    IDS-Sandhurst and some Italian Uni
    Hunt-Oxford
    Pickles-Leeds Met
    Morgan-Oxford
    Greening-Soton
    Davey-Oxford
    McLoughlin-No University education
    Carmichael-Aberdeen
    Villiers-Bristol (later Oxford)
    Crabb-Bristol
    Javid-South Gloucestershire and Stroud College
    Truss-Oxford
    Alexander-Oxford

    Although, interesting to note quite a few come from working class backgrounds

    shadow cabinet
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Ed-Oxford (didn't do as well as DC though)
    Harman-York (one of the crap colleges though)
    Balls-Oxford (and later Harvard)
    Alexander-Edinburgh
    Cooper-Oxford (later Harvard and LSE)
    KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA N-North London
    Winterton-Hull
    Burham-Cambridge
    Umunna-Manchester
    Reeves-Oxford
    Hunt-Cambridge
    Coaker-Warwick (then went and got a PGCE at TRent poly)
    Benn-Sussex
    Flint-UEA
    Eagle-Oxford
    Dugher-None
    Lewis-None
    Creagh-Oxford
    Curran-Glasgow
    Smith-Sussex
    (different) Eagle-Oxford
    Powell-Oxford
    Trickett-Hull (later Leeds)
    De Piero (despite having a stupid job)-Westminster
    Leslie-Leeds

    Not as many as for the Conservatives, but still a disproportionate amount of Oxfords.

    This isn't a party partisan rant.
    Doesn't sound it, but that's besides the point
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.