shurlock

Both Lallana and Lovren deserve stick (while any acknowledgments for Lambert can wait till the end of the game). Just hope we can do better than "Adam Lallana we fûçkîng hate you" sung ad nauseam for 90mins. Seems to be all we can muster these days.

Was that something about Brady's sexual preferences?

Who would you rather beat? And for those who have problems with hypotheticals, which win would be sweeter? Spurs for me, even though the scousers are a marginally bigger threat for a top four spot IMO.

Then again, wouldn't recommend anyone to do business, economics and law in three years, let alone two years Proposals, I heard, want 30% of degree courses to be shorter or more intensive. Goes without saying that they are geared more to newer subjects.

Agree - many courses could be shortened or, at least, work placements could account for a larger share of time spent on them.

Absolutely. Still, whether you're intially pro or con something, it's always useful to admit the fallibility of your opinion by avoiding extreme positions, especially with a big, complicated beast like public policy

Uncapped fees is a simplification but you're in favour of giving universities more autonomy to set prices. Interested to know what that would like in your world: how much could a Russell Group university charge for a degree, leaving aside the risks and potentials liabilities borne by the taxpayer?

Seems like you don't know whether you're coming or going. From initially opposing fees out of a misguided sense of idealism, you're now fervently championing them for widening access, even though short-run data can't possibly capture the more important long-term impacts of the policy which we won't really know until the current cohort moves through the system and pays off the debt (or doesnt) and the next generation of university applicants adjusts to that experience. More confusingly, you're now completely in favour of uncapped fees, dubbing current policy irresponsible, even though allowing universities to charge what they like would almost certainly price out those from poorer backgrounds. All while speaking about access with a straight face

Delldaysesque.

You do realise that most low paid jobs are the least capable of being offshored - that's one thing they have going for them.

Do you want the troops going out on empty stomachs, metaphorically speaking?

Nothing to do with ignorance or laziness. There's substantial evidence that people from lower income backgrounds weigh costs and benefits differently, discount the future more aggressively, place a greater emphasis on losses than gains etc (though we all do to an extent). All of which can result in more cautious and conservative decision-making.

Details aside, no reason, in principle, why that couldn't be made workable.

The independent UK Commission for Employment and Skills routinely carries out employer needs surveys and has done plenty of work on jobs for the future. At a grass roots level, its not uncommon for universities to provide financial incentives for students to pursue STEM subject (Queen Mary and Sheffield do). John Naughton of the OU has gone even further and argued that tuition fees for anyone studying STEM should be halved.

What kind of degree do you need to be a mystery shopper at Next or Top Man?

A complete bottle job by the FA because its easier to leave a ref who, had a shocker, out to dry than a. If Adrian doesn't handle, Mane gets the ball. There was a player approaching from the left; but is anyone claiming that Mane wouldn't have been able to turn and get a shot off. I'd fancy his chances as much as the case where a striker, through on goal, is brought down by the last defender (a clear red) but still has the keeper to beat.

You obviously haven't seen or read Murphy, Shleifer and Vishny's famous academic paper on the number of law graduates being bad for growth (though I take it very much as being tongue in cheek).

Love it - just imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Blackmore had tried to crack that joke with Pochettino.

Fully sympathise with the aspiration. From a distributive angle, my concern has always been that free university education is a subsidy to middle classes who largely internalise the benefits in terms of higher wages (give or take a bit of loose change in tax) while imposing costs on working class taxpayers. Where the pie is fixed and shrinking, such a subsidy takes away from other choices - a properly functioning training system and adult education. These have been the Cinderellas at the policy ball but have historically favoured the less well-off as well as delivered wider societal benefits -benefits that 'rational' individuals will overlook when making investment decisions and the natural province of government. Can't recall the precise ratios; but the imbalance in priorities, aided and abetted by various governments, is stark. Which is to say that I'm all for widening access, though that should take the form of beefed up maintenance grants, not a blanket approach implied by free education. At the moment, we have the worst of all worlds: a debt burden that will see nearly 75% of graduates not repay their debt in full, a prospect not being felt in falling applications as the distant future is invariably discounted and deemed someone else's business -all while roughly half of graduates are found in nongraduate jobs thanks to technological change, the inherent biases of the UK economy and university courses that are struggling to stay fit-for-purpose in a very volatile world.

The football analogy doesn't quite work. First, football clubs, just like many apprentice schemes in other industries, pay below-market rates to youngsters to cover or subsidise the costs of training. And perhaps importantly, football clubs are effectively taking equity stakes in kids when/if they sell them for large transfer fees, allowing them to take the risks you're clamouring for. The logical extension is a form of human capital contract (HCC) which is the ultimate libertarian fantasy and not something, I'm sure, you have in mind.

Agree - the proof of the pudding will be how many repay their loans. It's quite possible that this initiative just turns into a massive subsidy from the taxpayer to the university sector, providing uncertain benefits to students. The market in university education -which is sadly what it has become and becoming- doesn't work well enough for many students to realise that they've been sold a crock of cr@p.

Further reinforcing the impression that youre a bit clueless, Hammond didnt come on till the last 5mins in that game.

Wednesday and Wolves' Hi Ho Silver Lining is always good value.

The stadium of light always makes me laugh: the juxtaposition of flat-capped northerners yawning into their bovril and prokofiev as it threatens the blow the tannoy system. Even the full version of the Skids song, not just the cloying chorus, would be a start at our place...