I HATE it when this happens.
Even as I pressed “Publish” yesterday morning on this post attacking Edinburgh University for its admissions policy, I was ignoring one of my own blogging rules: if you’re not 100 per cent certain that you’ve got it right, delay publishing until you’ve cooled off.
As has already been pointed out, Edinburgh is hardly the only uni to have such a policy, and in certain circumstances it’s completely reasonable. Then Alex Massie, who I like and admire, wrote this perfectly sensible riposte, forcing me to hang my head in shame.
I was sorely tempted to do one of three things: I could have ignored the contrary arguments and moved on as if nothing had happened (that was my originally preferred course of action, to be honest).
Or I could have written this mea culpa in the comments thread; after all, no bugger reads this site at the weekend and even fewer read the comments.
But, like Poe’s Tell-tale Heart, that post was a living, breathing, pulsating reminder that I had screwed up, regardless of how much I was determined to ignore it. I could, of course, have deleted the post altogether (the equivalent of excising it and burying it in the garden), but I’ve never yet resorted to such drastic behaviour; that way lies madness.
So instead, let me offer my apologies to Edinburgh University for a completely unjustified over-reaction.
Back to top
Monday 9 November 2009 at 9:32 pm
“put a great deal of effort into reinventing Labour as a low tax party”
As an APPARENTLY low tax party, you mean Tom. Our taxes are not low, but nor are they particularly high (we’re pretty much middle of the road really).
In fact, if you read the ONS Effect of Taxes and Benefits on household incomes, you see that we actually tax the bottom 10% more as a % of their gross income (earnings + benefits) than we do the top 10%, if you count all direct and indirect taxes.
If you like, there are a few ways to give the poorest more money. Lowering VAT (this affects the lower paid more than the top, as a %), lowering alcohol and tobacco duties, raising income tax thresholds, simply benefits to reduce or remove the punitive marginal rates faced by those stuck in the welfare trap.
There are a great many things you could do, but you won’t.. because that would require the great Clunking Fist admitting that his tax and benefits system doesn’t work to reduce inequality. What a waste of a golden decade.
Monday 9 November 2009 at 9:49 pm
Nice ideas Tom, but if Labour want their voters back, a few quid back in tax isn’t going to cut it.
Your colleagues seem to be ignoring what you have done to the daily lives of your erstwhile supporters.
Monday 9 November 2009 at 9:51 pm
‘…modern, left-of-centre political party….’ Love the satire.
Your ilk have been in political power for 12 years. Asking now is just extracting it.
You let it happen, you are responsible. Why ask the people you have ignored for 12 years? Oh yes an election coming up you expect to loose.
No that was not a vote for any political party before I am accused of being a Tory fan or a Lib-Dem hoper.
Why don’t you listen to the over 70% who dont vote for you , rather than those who do? Apparently our Democratic system means we are run by a support base of fewer than 70% of the population. UK Democracy is defunct.
You didn’t listen Tom because you didn’t care and now you may loose your cushty job you suddenly do. Whywere you not asking this question 12 years ago?
Monday 9 November 2009 at 9:58 pm
A silly number game…
Quite right Tom, get rid of the lot of you.
But perhaps that is too much of a concept for you to get your head around. British Democracy is a sick and stale joke. Politicians are mainly sycophantic idiots.
Try looking outside the box instead of inside the Westminster cesspit, but of course you will never engage as you are in the swamp.
Democracy is not the nirvana, in reality it is an abbregation of responsibility by the masses and a sad indictment of humanity.
Monday 9 November 2009 at 10:08 pm
Ever since man was able to hunt or grow more food than was needed to survive, capitalism has been our most successful invention.
Capialism is not a zero sum game. Crudely there is not a fixed amount of money to be divided up between people, but due to science we have hitherto been able to invent machinery and optimise it, which compared to stone age man is astounding.
Without the entrepreneurs who can utilise the work of scientists we have the perfect environment for the betterment of man. However, we also need politicians to set the framework of justice, law and order to allow us all to flourish, against a minimum of corruption and to make sure the people who do not have the skills to compete are cared and catered for.
My conclusions are that invention and business should be given a higher pedestal to bestride. On blogs like this we should be left to argue over the details.
Sunday 21 March 2010 at 9:29 am
I’m impressed. Normally politicians seem to stick rigidly to a view when in fact all views should be provisional – they stand only until new facts and/or a strong different argument comes along.
The Tories tend to be utterly intransigent even though they are as wrong as the flat-earthers. I hope that doesn’t sound too harsh on the flat-earthers.
Sunday 21 March 2010 at 2:00 pm
Very nice – it’s rare these days to see someone admit to making a mistake, and it really does cement your reputation as one of the good guys, no matter what political differences exist.
I do have to say, though, that I’m not convinced by Massie’s arguments that discrimination is widespread and other universities discriminate in the same way so therefore it’s OK, and I find my own beliefs much closer to your original post.
I’m sure there are lots of pragmatic reasons why such a policy exists but the fact is that it’s not a level playing field.
It doesn’t sound very bad to say that, from two equally-good candidates, you should choose the local one – but what about changing the word “local” for “white” or “male”? The cries would be so loud they’d hear it in Australia! Why should it be acceptable in this case? Why does a candidate’s parents’ address matter any more than their jobs or skin tone? And won’t such policies, all things being equal, result in the sort of catchment-area farce that already happens for schools?
Leave a comment