Forum Replies Created
- Posts
If I had a horse that had finished in the frame in this year’s King George and Gold Cup, he’d be aimed at them again this season.
Just found this thread – a good debate.
What some posters appear not to grasp is that this isn’t some politically motivated, "let’s have a go at poor people" effort by the tories, rather it’s a financial necessity. We simply can’t afford to support so many students, so they’ll have to make an increased contribution if they want to go to uni.
Nothing wrong with that, imo.
The cause of the problem is too many people going to uni. Sorry to sound elitist, but university is for clever people, not for everyone. The Labour govt’s ridiculous target of 50% of kids going to uni has just meant that too many embark on expensive and ultimately worthless degrees. How is a Media Studies degree going to get you a job? American Studies? David Beckham Studies? If you have to put ‘Studies’ after it to make it clear that it’s an academic subject, then it isn’t one I’m afraid.
What we should do is make economically ‘useful’ degrees (engineering, maths, medicine etc.) free (this could be partially funded by industry – for example a large engineering firm could fund a university engineering department in return for first crack at the graduates). Non-useful degrees can be £6k per year, which could discourage people from doing subjects that won’t lead to a job in any case.
Simples!
Dave – quantitative easing is not borrowed money – it’s money created by the central bank (essentially printing money). They use this newly created money to buy government bonds, which effectively places the new money in the hands of financial institutions.
The idea is that it gets more money circulating in the economy, stimulating demand.
Whether it actually works is unproven.
The potential pitfall is inflation – but because the effects are delayed, nobody knows if and when this will be a problem.
There are a couple of other side effects to QE. One is to weaken the currency (which can make your exports more competitive, but imports more expensive), and another is to inflate asset prices, for example pushing share prices up.
QE is an almost entirely separate issue to public spending and borrowing, which was the orignial subject of the thread (though as QE drives government bond yields down it can allow the government to borrow more cheaply).
As I said in my original post, the level of government spending is unsustainable and needs to be cut.
It’s beyond me how anyone can justify the size of the public sector at present. Surely it’s blindingly obvious that we need these cuts, otherwise our economy is just not sustainable.
An ever increasing public sector, supported by a dwindling private sector – it’s never going to work. I feel sorry for those that are losing their jobs, but sorry, we just can’t afford it.
The cuts weren’t severe enough in my opinion. They only take the size of the state back to where it was in 2004, when it was still too big following seven years of Labour massaging the unemployment figures by giving people non-jobs in the public sector.
I used to ride out for two sisters who trained and rode their own point-to-pointers. They rode against each other quite a few times, including when finishing 1st and 2nd (of two runners!) in the Seavington Hunt Race on Captain Random and The Earth Moved. A fantastic photo of the two horses in the air together made it onto the front page of that year’s Point to Point Results and Form published by Weatherbys.
Didn’t see the race, but from what you say it reminds me of my first ever visit to a racecourse.
Being a fresh-faced and naive twelve-year-old, I had persuaded my parents to let me call a tipping line beforehand, and it tipped a horse called General Sir Peter – I backed it on course (or should I say my parents did!) at 9-1 I think.
The horse bolted and completed a full circuit of the track before the race. Instead of being withdrawn it ran, and dead heated for first place.
Surely it should be up to connections to assess whether a horse is fit to run in these situations?
If he had hurdled like Istabraq last time out, I’d say yes, but his jumping doesn’t look the slickest at present (despite his massive engine), and that could be his downfall in the CH.
It won’t help in the Supreme either, but the Champion would be a much less forgiving race.
If he was mine he’d be over fences by now anyway; no point messing around over hurdles at his age!
Not sure you can call his run in the King George "like a demented goat".
He was the only one to even try to serve it up to Kauto. Had he been ridden for second he would have beaten the rest.
I’d rather have him than Air Force Dodgepot, that’s for sure….
Inverse snobbery ? Care to point out what is inversely snobby about someone having a go at another jockey blocking a ride for someone else ? or maybe some people just want to see Stravisnky Dance run ? the fact is he is acting like a spoilt brat, and many people are saying it, probably because it’s true. You never see any other jockeys out there calling the shots in such a petty manner.
He’s not "blocking a ride for somebody else" – it’s their sodding horse and it’s up to them who rides it. People own horses for all sorts of reasons, but to provide a betting medium for punters isn’t normally one of them.
I agree with the inverted snobbery comments – you’re just jealous because he’s got a helicopter
You must be a hard man to please Benny? Celtic Swing didn’t do much wrong!
I suppose he was certainly top class, and therefore might not qualify for this thread, but the visual impression created by his Racing Post Trophy victory made me hope for so much more.
Beaten in the 2000 by Pennekamp and then controversially absent from Epsom, I think it’s fair to say he didn’t live up to expectations, despite being a multiple Group 1 winner.
These four spring to mind over jumps:
Kicks for Free
Hoo La Baloo
Nacarat
Fix The Rib (not quite given up hope on this one)Biggest disappointment ever on the Flat: Celtic Swing
