egg

For me, it's when that degree or degree equivalent is needed. A kid with 3 decent a levels is plainly degree able, but why the need to secure that degree before working in lesser roles related to their profession of choice. They can then study part time to get their qualifications whilst progressing their training. Lawyer apprentices, for example, will start in a secretarial type roles, then progress to paralegal, then in a quasi lawyer role, then the real job. It's probably galling for many traditionalists who've gone the old school way, but their way doesn't have to be the only way.

Ha!! But your accountant or lawyer? Degree equivalents, for the latter two, earned while training and earning are common. By their late 20's, those apprentice professionals have 10 years in the saddle, no study debt, and are several years ahead of their graduate peers on the ladder. I know you jest, but as it can work for lawyers and accountants, why not other professionals? An apprentice dentist, for example, could work as a dental nurse and / or hygienist and/or within the business whilst studying for the real job, then qualify with shed loads of experience in the other roles. There are very few professions that actually necessitate an undergraduate degree before an individual starts their journey.

A degree merely shows that someone finished some studies, and is likely to be at least moderately intelligent. I love the push for vocational studies. I'd also like to see a huge push on apprenticeships.

Yep, although to be fair, Tolkien does describe some characters by colour. I'm still reeling from tiny Tom Cruise playing the massive Jack Reacher.

Good shout. I'll retrain as a bricklayer if that happens.

The current system is based on historic rateable value. The new idea being floated is based on an updated rateable value. The concept is well established. What do you propose instead? No flannel please, just your proposal.

Acting

Close the channel? What's your plan? Nigel can't either?

Calling a shovel a shovel isn't a political stance. It's an objective assessment.

That highlights your misunderstanding - no centrist is bang in the middle, and I'm certainly left of centre on some issues and right of centre on others. I'm left of you though, so in your view I can't possibly be a centrist.

Nice deletion mate...you mentioned "your side of the political spectrum". That says it all - anyone to your left, even a centrist who's ever voted labour like me, is a lefty on your view. We're not the US with a simple left/right division, but we seemingly are to people with your simple political outlook. I was going to retract my earlier comment re your simple views, but you've justified it yourself.

I'm right on this petal.

I disagree. Burnham hadn't said anything meaningful about his policies pre his coronation, and I've criticised that process. Had their been an election involving him, I'd have wanted to know before deciding whether to cast a vote for his party. Having never voted labour, I'd have taken some persuasion though. Farage, in contrast, has said plenty. Playing the tape forwards, I think he'll be a disaster. That's what all voters have a duty to do imo. If he's elected, heaven forbid , I'll give him a chance - what other choice is there. Back to your initial point, I can't be partisan towards a party I've never voted for, or a bloke I've never voted for.

There's plenty Farage has said which alarms me immensely. Nothing Burnham has said, yet, does. There's a distinction between foresight and being partisan.

Most of your points are very simple.