Me. Chair of the Health Select Committee, which may suffice to call him 'senior'.
Dr Sarah Wollaston was also that Chair for five years. I'd heard of her, as my MP, but still a stretch to call her "senior"...
Senior MPs for me would be roughly ex cabinet/shadow cabinet, leadership candidates, father/mother of the house and select committee chairs.
What would you count?
Mostly agree, but for Select Committee chairs. They might have a higher profile in Westminster, but they rarely feature in the public consciousness.
You might get some MPs who have championed a cause outside of being a Minister, that qualifies as "senior" - but they are few and far between.
How many could identify a photo of Brine? 2% 1%? Of pb.com posters?
Think you are confusing senior with well known. I agree he is not well known, but think he is senior in terms of Tory MPs as demonstrated by his peers electing him as chair of a select committee.
Me. Chair of the Health Select Committee, which may suffice to call him 'senior'.
Dr Sarah Wollaston was also that Chair for five years. I'd heard of her, as my MP, but still a stretch to call her "senior"...
Senior MPs for me would be roughly ex cabinet/shadow cabinet, leadership candidates, father/mother of the house and select committee chairs.
What would you count?
Mostly agree, but for Select Committee chairs. They might have a higher profile in Westminster, but they rarely feature in the public consciousness.
You might get some MPs who have championed a cause outside of being a Minister, that qualifies as "senior" - but they are few and far between.
How many could identify a photo of Brine? 2% 1%? Of pb.com posters?
Think you are confusing senior with well known. I agree he is not well known, but think he is senior in terms of Tory MPs as demonstrated by his peers electing him as chair of a select committee.
Depends who the alternatives were!
Senior is a relative term. Now if we were talking about competent and effective Tory MPs perhaps we could agree the lists should indeed be much more limited.
Edit: I assume they mean heavier than any light tank, but what is the definition of a ‘light’ tank, particularly if it’s not light.
Four times heavier than the vehicle it replaces. But it has to be to have any survivability against modern weapons. Otherwise you might as well use a Transit with a periscope as your recon vehicle. It does make absolutely no sense for it to be tracked though in the light of recent developments in the British Army. We've ended up with a recon element that has significantly less mobility than the AFV it's supposed to be ahead of - Boxer. France and Italy have gone all wheels for everything except MBTs which makes a lot more sense.
Essentially, since the dawn of armoured vehicles, you go through
1) We need something with more armour and more firepower 2) We also need a scout vehicle 3) We need it to be light (these days airmobile) 4) We need it to survive all kind of threats. 5) To save money, the fighting vehicle and scout vehicle are the same
17) why does it weigh more than a tank? Make it lighter 18) now it has no weapons. And carries too few soldiers. 19) Got to 1)
The IFV you get is purely down to where the merry-go-round stopped in the loop.
Which is why some say, just buy a main battle tank with the turret removed for the fighting vehicle (see Namer) and drive it over the bodies of the "it must be airmobile" types.
The scouts get a bunch of different vehicles, from motorcycles up. Electric motorcycles are apparently being used by the Ukrainians - fast, manoeuvrable and very quiet.
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
Latest from Downing St. ..Downing Street says the improve pay offer for health workers in England announced yesterday will cost around £4bn.
At the morning lobby briefing, a No 10 spokesperson said the “non-consolidated element for 2022-23” – the one-off payments worth up to 8.2% – would cost an extra £2.7bn.
And he said the “consolidated element for 2023-24” – the 5% pay rise – would cost around £1.3bn.
The spokesperson would not say how the £4bn would be funded. The health department will be discussing this with the Treasury, he said...
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
Latest from Downing St. ..Downing Street says the improve pay offer for health workers in England announced yesterday will cost around £4bn.
At the morning lobby briefing, a No 10 spokesperson said the “non-consolidated element for 2022-23” – the one-off payments worth up to 8.2% – would cost an extra £2.7bn.
And he said the “consolidated element for 2023-24” – the 5% pay rise – would cost around £1.3bn.
The spokesperson would not say how the £4bn would be funded. The health department will be discussing this with the Treasury, he said...
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Slagging off the NHS is becoming a bit of a religion on here.
When you see Doctors out on strike , my sympathy for them and similarly for nurses plummets.. irrespective of how strong their case might be.
Agreed. I was making exactly the same point with regard to teachers last night.
The thing is, they probably value a pay rise/better conditions more than sympathy - and strikes are more effective at achieving the former, even if they cost a bit of the latter.
How about we all give pensioners triple locked sympathy increases each year and give the cash saved to public sector workers? A fair trade surely?
Given they complain about the lack of sympathy that sounds like a great deal for pensioners.
Think the elderly would get more sympathy if for once they would admit that buying a property doesnt depend on going without a few takeaway coffees. But they wont.
The elderly, like the young, do not exist as a single entity. Of course the elderly do not think that is the case. A few may do but they are hardly representative of the elderly as a group.
If the elderly came out and said look we think property prices are too high they would get more respect. But strangely many when they do put their house on the market prefer to withdraw it again rather than accept a realistic offer. Thats just pure greed.
The problem with housing is we need to build more.
So we get the bizarre scenario of an MP like Layla Moran bemoaning the lack of homes in her area for Ukrainian refugees yet opposing many housing developments to pander to NIMBYs.
We also need to build where the homes are needed.
Why should people be expected to sell their homes at a price they don’t want to. I really doubt the scenario you paint is what happens in large numbers.
Oxford West & Abingdon is Nimby Central -- all those chattering LibDems in enormous Victorian or Edwardian houses worried about their historic neighbourhoods.
When I lived in OXWAB, the local Residents Group was the most active semi-fascist group I have so far encountered. It routinely objected to anything whatsoever that changed the neighbourhood.
Whilst new builds are needed, we could also make better use of existing housing stock:
1. By penalizing singletons who live in enormous houses 2. By penalizing second homers.
Inefficient use of our housing stock should be discouraged through a property tax (as in that very left-wing country, the USA ).
The existing Council Tax fails to do this. In fact, it does the opposite. You get a 25 % discount if you are on your own in a huge property.
Right, I'm off for an ever so slightly longer than normal weekend now in the New Forest with the wife & kids. Been looking forward to it since NYD.
Have fun peeps.
Have fun. I'm quite jealous; I love the New Forest. But I'll be down there in a couple of weeks myself.
Although I hope... (shudders) you're not going to Peppa Pig World... ?
I've been to PPW twice. I thought it was quite good, for what it was. Done with a modicum of taste and charm and the kids loved it. Of course, there is a lot to Paulton's Park besides PPW, and as I remember it almost all of it was completely bereft of queues. My middle daughter, then three, had her first roller coaster experience on the Frog there. "I not sure about dis" became "wheeeeee!". We went on it seven consecutive times. A golden memory.
Protesters blocked a key highway around the French capital and escalated strikes at refineries on Friday in a fresh show of anger after president Emmanuel Macron pushed through a contentious pension reform without a parliamentary vote.
Mr Macron's move sparked protests across the country on Thursday night, with more than 300 people arrested across France, according to the interior minister.
On Friday morning, some 200 protesters briefly blocked traffic on the ring road outside the capital.
Pah, a few hundred.
What did they think would happen reelecting Macron with his plans for Pension Reform? We usually hear nothing about domestic policy of other nations (other than USA), but even we knew he's been pushing on that door for years.
Les Republicains voted for Macron's pension plans, while Melenchon's left block joined with Le Pen's block to vote against.
Conforming Macron is effectively now a centre right President albeit a liberal one
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
A one off bonus is not a pay rise, as it is removed the following year, and the employee has no ongoing entitlement to it. It is a one off bonus, as I said.
Also you should be 'adding' it to the 3.5% award for 2022-23. The 5% is for the period 2023-24.
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
So a below average pay rise with a bonus?
No a payrise which is more than the average worker is getting, paid for by taxpayers
Slagging off the NHS is becoming a bit of a religion on here.
When you see Doctors out on strike , my sympathy for them and similarly for nurses plummets.. irrespective of how strong their case might be.
Agreed. I was making exactly the same point with regard to teachers last night.
The thing is, they probably value a pay rise/better conditions more than sympathy - and strikes are more effective at achieving the former, even if they cost a bit of the latter.
How about we all give pensioners triple locked sympathy increases each year and give the cash saved to public sector workers? A fair trade surely?
Given they complain about the lack of sympathy that sounds like a great deal for pensioners.
Think the elderly would get more sympathy if for once they would admit that buying a property doesnt depend on going without a few takeaway coffees. But they wont.
The elderly, like the young, do not exist as a single entity. Of course the elderly do not think that is the case. A few may do but they are hardly representative of the elderly as a group.
If the elderly came out and said look we think property prices are too high they would get more respect. But strangely many when they do put their house on the market prefer to withdraw it again rather than accept a realistic offer. Thats just pure greed.
The problem with housing is we need to build more.
So we get the bizarre scenario of an MP like Layla Moran bemoaning the lack of homes in her area for Ukrainian refugees yet opposing many housing developments to pander to NIMBYs.
We also need to build where the homes are needed.
Why should people be expected to sell their homes at a price they don’t want to. I really doubt the scenario you paint is what happens in large numbers.
Oxford West & Abingdon is Nimby Central -- all those chattering LibDems in enormous Victorian or Edwardian houses worried about their historic neighbourhoods.
When I lived in OXWAB, the local Residents Group was the most active semi-fascist group I have so far encountered. It routinely objected to anything whatsoever that changed the neighbourhood.
Whilst new builds are needed, we could also make better use of existing housing stock:
1. By penalizing singletons who live in enormous houses 2. By penalizing second homers.
Inefficient use of our housing stock should be discouraged through a property tax (as in that very left-wing country, the USA ).
The existing Council Tax fails to do this. In fact, it does the opposite. You get a 25 % discount if you are on your own in a huge property.
Build enough "enormous houses" that we can go back to the days when a 3 bed semi was what poor people lived in.
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
So a below average pay rise with a bonus?
Yes sounds like a below average deal from the unions point of view and slightly better than expected one from the government. However if it had been offered last autumn it would have been accepted and we would have had a winter without all the strikes and disruption.
Slagging off the NHS is becoming a bit of a religion on here.
When you see Doctors out on strike , my sympathy for them and similarly for nurses plummets.. irrespective of how strong their case might be.
Agreed. I was making exactly the same point with regard to teachers last night.
The thing is, they probably value a pay rise/better conditions more than sympathy - and strikes are more effective at achieving the former, even if they cost a bit of the latter.
How about we all give pensioners triple locked sympathy increases each year and give the cash saved to public sector workers? A fair trade surely?
Given they complain about the lack of sympathy that sounds like a great deal for pensioners.
Think the elderly would get more sympathy if for once they would admit that buying a property doesnt depend on going without a few takeaway coffees. But they wont.
The elderly, like the young, do not exist as a single entity. Of course the elderly do not think that is the case. A few may do but they are hardly representative of the elderly as a group.
If the elderly came out and said look we think property prices are too high they would get more respect. But strangely many when they do put their house on the market prefer to withdraw it again rather than accept a realistic offer. Thats just pure greed.
The problem with housing is we need to build more.
So we get the bizarre scenario of an MP like Layla Moran bemoaning the lack of homes in her area for Ukrainian refugees yet opposing many housing developments to pander to NIMBYs.
We also need to build where the homes are needed.
Why should people be expected to sell their homes at a price they don’t want to. I really doubt the scenario you paint is what happens in large numbers.
Oxford West & Abingdon is Nimby Central -- all those chattering LibDems in enormous Victorian or Edwardian houses worried about their historic neighbourhoods.
When I lived in OXWAB, the local Residents Group was the most active semi-fascist group I have so far encountered. It routinely objected to anything whatsoever that changed the neighbourhood.
Whilst new builds are needed, we could also make better use of existing housing stock:
1. By penalizing singletons who live in enormous houses 2. By penalizing second homers.
Inefficient use of our housing stock should be discouraged through a property tax (as in that very left-wing country, the USA ).
The existing Council Tax fails to do this. In fact, it does the opposite. You get a 25 % discount if you are on your own in a huge property.
I'm not sure about penalising singletons who live in enormous houses, but there's certainly a strong case for removing the 25% discount.
As for second-home owners - bring it on. Make them pay for their privilege.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
BBC official response to complaints about its treatment of Lineker:
Thanks for contacting us about Gary Lineker.
BBC Director-General, Tim Davie, has released a statement regarding Gary’s use of social media. In it, he’s said the following:
“Everyone recognises this has been a difficult period for staff, contributors, presenters and, most importantly, our audiences. I apologise for this. The potential confusion caused by the grey areas of the BBC’s social media guidance that was introduced in 2020 is recognised. I want to get matters resolved and our sport content back on air.
“Impartiality is important to the BBC. It is also important to the public. The BBC has a commitment to impartiality in its Charter and a commitment to freedom of expression. That is a difficult balancing act to get right where people are subject to different contracts and on air positions, and with different audience and social media profiles. The BBC’s social media guidance is designed to help manage these sometimes difficult challenges and I am aware there is a need to ensure that the guidance is up to this task. It should be clear, proportionate, and appropriate.
“Accordingly, we are announcing a review led by an independent expert – reporting to the BBC – on its existing social media guidance, with a particular focus on how it applies to freelancers outside news and current affairs. The BBC and myself are aware that Gary is in favour of such a review.
“Shortly, the BBC will announce who will conduct that review. Whilst this work is undertaken, the BBC’s current social media guidance remains in place.
“Gary is a valued part of the BBC and I know how much the BBC means to Gary, and I look forward to him presenting our coverage this coming weekend.”
Gary himself has also commented on the matter, stating: “I am glad that we have found a way forward. I support this review and look forward to getting back on air.”
We’re aware that some have raised a variety of issues aside from Gary’s social media specifically, and we’re sorry that we’re not able to address all of these matters in our response here. If you’ve raised wider concerns in your complaint, responses to a range of these matters will be posted publicly on our website at the address below, which will be updated in the coming weeks:
We’d like to thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us. We recognise the strength of feeling these issues have provoked across our audience. We’d like to reassure you that this has been heard and discussed across all levels of the BBC.
Me. Chair of the Health Select Committee, which may suffice to call him 'senior'.
Dr Sarah Wollaston was also that Chair for five years. I'd heard of her, as my MP, but still a stretch to call her "senior"...
Senior MPs for me would be roughly ex cabinet/shadow cabinet, leadership candidates, father/mother of the house and select committee chairs.
What would you count?
Mostly agree, but for Select Committee chairs. They might have a higher profile in Westminster, but they rarely feature in the public consciousness.
You might get some MPs who have championed a cause outside of being a Minister, that qualifies as "senior" - but they are few and far between.
How many could identify a photo of Brine? 2% 1%? Of pb.com posters?
In my experience, everyone on the doorstep is going on about Steve Brine.
The betting exchanges are considering replacing some of the Cheltenham links from their homepage with the % recognition market on Brine in the next Yougov poll too.
Slagging off the NHS is becoming a bit of a religion on here.
When you see Doctors out on strike , my sympathy for them and similarly for nurses plummets.. irrespective of how strong their case might be.
Agreed. I was making exactly the same point with regard to teachers last night.
The thing is, they probably value a pay rise/better conditions more than sympathy - and strikes are more effective at achieving the former, even if they cost a bit of the latter.
But when public sector workers strike, whether the government decides to concede or hold out depends on whether it perceives it will gain or lose votes by each course of action, which in turn depends on whether public sympathy is with or against the strikers.
Difficulty is, if you are in a sector where there is a monopsony employer, or nearly so, what should you do when your employer decides to take the mickey with their pay offer?
Eventually, the answer is "go and do something else instead", or "go abroad". Despite the hassle barriers in those, far too many people are doing that for comfort.
As I said, privatise the public sector. Take the monopsony away. Much easier to say on the internet than to implement in practice, of course! And we've already done most of the bits where doing so was most easy.
If you want to go that way, you have to have suppliers saying "we'll provide that school/nursery/social care, but it will cost you £X." And X is almost certainly higher than the state is paying at the moment. One of the problems we have at the moment is government setting tarrifs at a level which doesn't really cover the costs properly. So in childcare, the commercial rates have to cross-subsidise the government funded hours.
So, if you need something slightly different than the state-mandated offering, you need to pay way more than would be the case without the state intervention.
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
A one off bonus is not a pay rise, as it is removed the following year, and the employee has no ongoing entitlement to it. It is a one off bonus, as I said.
Also you should be 'adding' it to the 3.5% award for 2022-23. The 5% is for the period 2023-24.
You are either confused, or being disingenuous.
That is most unfair, on past form it is perfectly possible he is both.
Slagging off the NHS is becoming a bit of a religion on here.
When you see Doctors out on strike , my sympathy for them and similarly for nurses plummets.. irrespective of how strong their case might be.
Agreed. I was making exactly the same point with regard to teachers last night.
The thing is, they probably value a pay rise/better conditions more than sympathy - and strikes are more effective at achieving the former, even if they cost a bit of the latter.
How about we all give pensioners triple locked sympathy increases each year and give the cash saved to public sector workers? A fair trade surely?
Given they complain about the lack of sympathy that sounds like a great deal for pensioners.
Think the elderly would get more sympathy if for once they would admit that buying a property doesnt depend on going without a few takeaway coffees. But they wont.
The elderly, like the young, do not exist as a single entity. Of course the elderly do not think that is the case. A few may do but they are hardly representative of the elderly as a group.
If the elderly came out and said look we think property prices are too high they would get more respect. But strangely many when they do put their house on the market prefer to withdraw it again rather than accept a realistic offer. Thats just pure greed.
The problem with housing is we need to build more.
So we get the bizarre scenario of an MP like Layla Moran bemoaning the lack of homes in her area for Ukrainian refugees yet opposing many housing developments to pander to NIMBYs.
We also need to build where the homes are needed.
Why should people be expected to sell their homes at a price they don’t want to. I really doubt the scenario you paint is what happens in large numbers.
Oxford West & Abingdon is Nimby Central -- all those chattering LibDems in enormous Victorian or Edwardian houses worried about their historic neighbourhoods.
When I lived in OXWAB, the local Residents Group was the most active semi-fascist group I have so far encountered. It routinely objected to anything whatsoever that changed the neighbourhood.
Whilst new builds are needed, we could also make better use of existing housing stock:
1. By penalizing singletons who live in enormous houses 2. By penalizing second homers.
Inefficient use of our housing stock should be discouraged through a property tax (as in that very left-wing country, the USA ).
The existing Council Tax fails to do this. In fact, it does the opposite. You get a 25 % discount if you are on your own in a huge property.
Build enough "enormous houses" that we can go back to the days when a 3 bed semi was what poor people lived in.
A 3 bed semi was what EVERYONE lived in. I grew up in by some measures the most middle class constituency in the country - Cheadle - I'd say the majority of the housing stock was post war 3BSs.
That said, much though I yearn for the days when a 3BS in an ok area could be bought on a single teacher's salary, I don't think they're necessarily great houses - either in terms of aesthetics, internal layouts, or efficiency. We can do better.
Slagging off the NHS is becoming a bit of a religion on here.
When you see Doctors out on strike , my sympathy for them and similarly for nurses plummets.. irrespective of how strong their case might be.
Agreed. I was making exactly the same point with regard to teachers last night.
The thing is, they probably value a pay rise/better conditions more than sympathy - and strikes are more effective at achieving the former, even if they cost a bit of the latter.
How about we all give pensioners triple locked sympathy increases each year and give the cash saved to public sector workers? A fair trade surely?
Given they complain about the lack of sympathy that sounds like a great deal for pensioners.
Think the elderly would get more sympathy if for once they would admit that buying a property doesnt depend on going without a few takeaway coffees. But they wont.
The elderly, like the young, do not exist as a single entity. Of course the elderly do not think that is the case. A few may do but they are hardly representative of the elderly as a group.
If the elderly came out and said look we think property prices are too high they would get more respect. But strangely many when they do put their house on the market prefer to withdraw it again rather than accept a realistic offer. Thats just pure greed.
The problem with housing is we need to build more.
So we get the bizarre scenario of an MP like Layla Moran bemoaning the lack of homes in her area for Ukrainian refugees yet opposing many housing developments to pander to NIMBYs.
We also need to build where the homes are needed.
Why should people be expected to sell their homes at a price they don’t want to. I really doubt the scenario you paint is what happens in large numbers.
Oxford West & Abingdon is Nimby Central -- all those chattering LibDems in enormous Victorian or Edwardian houses worried about their historic neighbourhoods.
When I lived in OXWAB, the local Residents Group was the most active semi-fascist group I have so far encountered. It routinely objected to anything whatsoever that changed the neighbourhood.
Whilst new builds are needed, we could also make better use of existing housing stock:
1. By penalizing singletons who live in enormous houses 2. By penalizing second homers.
Inefficient use of our housing stock should be discouraged through a property tax (as in that very left-wing country, the USA ).
The existing Council Tax fails to do this. In fact, it does the opposite. You get a 25 % discount if you are on your own in a huge property.
Same in Epping, LDs and Independents fiercely anti new housing and particularly anti new flat blocks.
Yet as an article in the FT points out today, continental Europe is building more new properties per head than us as they are more willing to live in flats and apartments than the Anglosphere
TL:DR; the stronk Russian pilot was so unbelievably stronk he hit the drone. And the Russians are lying about everything. Except perhaps that the planes were in the air...
Slagging off the NHS is becoming a bit of a religion on here.
When you see Doctors out on strike , my sympathy for them and similarly for nurses plummets.. irrespective of how strong their case might be.
Agreed. I was making exactly the same point with regard to teachers last night.
The thing is, they probably value a pay rise/better conditions more than sympathy - and strikes are more effective at achieving the former, even if they cost a bit of the latter.
How about we all give pensioners triple locked sympathy increases each year and give the cash saved to public sector workers? A fair trade surely?
Given they complain about the lack of sympathy that sounds like a great deal for pensioners.
Think the elderly would get more sympathy if for once they would admit that buying a property doesnt depend on going without a few takeaway coffees. But they wont.
The elderly, like the young, do not exist as a single entity. Of course the elderly do not think that is the case. A few may do but they are hardly representative of the elderly as a group.
If the elderly came out and said look we think property prices are too high they would get more respect. But strangely many when they do put their house on the market prefer to withdraw it again rather than accept a realistic offer. Thats just pure greed.
The problem with housing is we need to build more.
So we get the bizarre scenario of an MP like Layla Moran bemoaning the lack of homes in her area for Ukrainian refugees yet opposing many housing developments to pander to NIMBYs.
We also need to build where the homes are needed.
Why should people be expected to sell their homes at a price they don’t want to. I really doubt the scenario you paint is what happens in large numbers.
Oxford West & Abingdon is Nimby Central -- all those chattering LibDems in enormous Victorian or Edwardian houses worried about their historic neighbourhoods.
When I lived in OXWAB, the local Residents Group was the most active semi-fascist group I have so far encountered. It routinely objected to anything whatsoever that changed the neighbourhood.
Whilst new builds are needed, we could also make better use of existing housing stock:
1. By penalizing singletons who live in enormous houses 2. By penalizing second homers.
Inefficient use of our housing stock should be discouraged through a property tax (as in that very left-wing country, the USA ).
The existing Council Tax fails to do this. In fact, it does the opposite. You get a 25 % discount if you are on your own in a huge property.
I'm not sure about penalising singletons who live in enormous houses, but there's certainly a strong case for removing the 25% discount.
As for second-home owners - bring it on. Make them pay for their privilege.
We could remove the 25 per cent discount only for the highest Council Tax bands.
So, this would target single people living in big properties.
And it would retain the discount if you are a single person living in a more modest property.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
A one off bonus is not a pay rise, as it is removed the following year, and the employee has no ongoing entitlement to it. It is a one off bonus, as I said.
Also you should be 'adding' it to the 3.5% award for 2022-23. The 5% is for the period 2023-24.
You are either confused, or being disingenuous.
No I am not being confused, taxpayers are paying for the average NHS worker to get a pay rise more than the 6% average they are getting this year.
For someone on £30k in the NHS, the bonus equates to about 5% on top of the 3.5% headline
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
"this year" ONLY. After much greater inflation, and lagging pay foir some time before that.
Have I missed our Cheltenham advisors? Or have they simply gone broke?
10:32 below. You missed one winner. Never mind 🙂
Cheltenham Gold Cup 3.30 superstar Galopin Des Champs with an extra finishing gear over rivals at the moment in my opinion. It will amble around in background not looking special, but will show a Constitution Hillesque finish to get up to win. However, if you prefer longer odds e/w bet on Hewick I suggest as outsider most likely to cause a surprise by coming second, lightly raced this season but shown class previously in what is still early in a career.
Lossiemouth 1.30 Highway One O Two 2.10 Vaucelet 4.10
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
I got 7% and a £1200 one off cozzy livs from my employer in 2022 (We run alongside the actual year, not the FY). It's not a million miles off £1655 and 5%.
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
A one off bonus is not a pay rise, as it is removed the following year, and the employee has no ongoing entitlement to it. It is a one off bonus, as I said.
Also you should be 'adding' it to the 3.5% award for 2022-23. The 5% is for the period 2023-24.
You are either confused, or being disingenuous.
No I am not being confused, taxpayers are paying for the average NHS worker to get a pay rise more than the 6% average they are getting this year.
For someone on £30k in the NHS, the bonus equates to about 5% on top of the 3.5% headline
Disingenuous it is, then.
Explain to me why you are treating the one off bonus as a "pay rise" please. Contractually, and for the purpose of the next year's pay award, and every year after that, it isn't. It is a bonus, which disappears after the current year - unlike a pay rise, which becomes part of the base pay for next year's calculation.
Your spiel about taxpayers is just the usual distraction from you; I'm not interested. If we'd been arguing about justification, it might be relevant. When we're discussing the facts of the award, it isn't.
Have I missed our Cheltenham advisors? Or have they simply gone broke?
10:32 below. You missed one winner. Never mind 🙂
Cheltenham Gold Cup 3.30 superstar Galopin Des Champs with an extra finishing gear over rivals at the moment in my opinion. It will amble around in background not looking special, but will show a Constitution Hillesque finish to get up to win. However, if you prefer longer odds e/w bet on Hewick I suggest as outsider most likely to cause a surprise by coming second, lightly raced this season but shown class previously in what is still early in a career.
Lossiemouth 1.30 Highway One O Two 2.10 Vaucelet 4.10
Anything at single figure prices doesn't count, MR! But well done anyway.
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
"this year" ONLY. After much greater inflation, and lagging pay foir some time before that.
Polishing turds again, i see.
Maybe if Kate Forbes becomes your leader the SNP might actually learn some fiscal discipline!
Increase public sector wages over 10% inflation rate at a time i of high inflation largely due to the Ukraine war and you get an inflationary wage spiral which taxpayers have to fund via higher taxes
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
A one off bonus is not a pay rise, as it is removed the following year, and the employee has no ongoing entitlement to it. It is a one off bonus, as I said.
Also you should be 'adding' it to the 3.5% award for 2022-23. The 5% is for the period 2023-24.
You are either confused, or being disingenuous.
No I am not being confused, taxpayers are paying for the average NHS worker to get a pay rise more than the 6% average they are getting this year.
For someone on £30k in the NHS, the bonus equates to about 5% on top of the 3.5% headline
Disingenuous it is, then.
Explain to me why you are treating the one off bonus as a "pay rise" please. Contractually, and for the purpose of the next year's pay award, and every year after that, it isn't. It is a bonus, which disappears after the current year - unlike a pay rise, which becomes part of the base pay for next year's calculation.
Your spiel about taxpayers is just the usual distraction from you; I'm not interested. If we'd been arguing about justification, it might be relevant. When we're discussing the facts of the award, it isn't.
Thanks for the confirmation you want to increase taxes for the average taxpayer so NHS workers get a bigger payrise than they do!
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
A one off bonus is not a pay rise, as it is removed the following year, and the employee has no ongoing entitlement to it. It is a one off bonus, as I said.
Also you should be 'adding' it to the 3.5% award for 2022-23. The 5% is for the period 2023-24.
You are either confused, or being disingenuous.
No I am not being confused, taxpayers are paying for the average NHS worker to get a pay rise more than the 6% average they are getting this year.
For someone on £30k in the NHS, the bonus equates to about 5% on top of the 3.5% headline
Disingenuous it is, then.
Explain to me why you are treating the one off bonus as a "pay rise" please. Contractually, and for the purpose of the next year's pay award, and every year after that, it isn't. It is a bonus, which disappears after the current year - unlike a pay rise, which becomes part of the base pay for next year's calculation.
Your spiel about taxpayers is just the usual distraction from you; I'm not interested. If we'd been arguing about justification, it might be relevant. When we're discussing the facts of the award, it isn't.
Thanks for the confirmation you want to increase taxes for the average taxpayer so NHS workers get a bigger payrise than they do!
I haven't said anything about what I want. I simply pointed out that you are either a fool or a liar.
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
"this year" ONLY. After much greater inflation, and lagging pay foir some time before that.
Polishing turds again, i see.
Maybe if Kate Forbes becomes your leader the SNP might actually learn some fiscal discipline!
Increase public sector wages over 10% inflation rate at a time i of high inflation largely due to the Ukraine war and you get an inflationary wage spiral which taxpayers have to fund via higher taxes
You are always praising the full inflation rate of pay which your party gives your pensioner voters. But of course they don't work, and nurses etc work so don't count for you.
I got 7% and a £1200 one off cozzy livs from my employer in 2022 (We run alongside the actual year, not the FY). It's not a million miles off £1655 and 5%.
Baking the £1655 in fully for the lowest paid staff with a tapering element so that for each £30 above the lowest paid (£20k ?) someone earns the one off element is increased by £1 and the salary element decreased by £1 might be an idea if the offer is rejected.
That'd mean 5% + £1655 for NHS employees on £70k and a larger % + a bit less one off for employees below (Same as current in cash terms, better in ongoing terms)
Attack on lamestream media and OBR from me chapter xxxxviii
So did the Daily Papers let us down by misinforming us calling the nurse/health workers deal 5%?
If it’s nearer 20% where does that leave the argument beating inflation comes first? Or don’t the big bungs impact inflation in the same way as a consolidated pay offer? Even then for many workers it’s a guaranteed 10% pay increase not 5%. So why was it so bizarrely misreported?
And the big question that instantly leaps out, where’s the money coming from? We just had a budget and OBR that didn’t show us the pot for this. What that suggests is a political party promising pay increase but not saying how it’s paid for yet simultaneously insisting it definitely not coming from somewhere in existing budget. 🤔
NHS increase is only partly permanent. Some of it s a one off sum. Doesn't therefore cover inflation over the last year or two. So could interpret it in all sorts of ways according to taste - from negative to positive!
The agreed percentage pay rise for next year is indeed 5%.
The reporting is pretty clear: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-64977269 ..A 5% pay rise from April has been offered to NHS staff in England, including nurses and ambulance workers. In addition, staff have been offered a one-off payment of at least £1,655 to top up the past year's pay award...
The £1655 isn't a pay increase - it's effectively a one off bonus. It disappears next year from the point of view of any ongoing pay awards. So where is "a guaranteed 10% / nearer 20%" coming from ?
Have the terms changed, or is Moonrabbit being uncharacteristically lame herself ?
£1655 is an extra 4% for the average NHS worker. Added to the 5% rise that is a 9% payrise for the average NHS worker this year when the average UK worker is getting just a 6% rise
"this year" ONLY. After much greater inflation, and lagging pay foir some time before that.
Polishing turds again, i see.
Maybe if Kate Forbes becomes your leader the SNP might actually learn some fiscal discipline!
Increase public sector wages over 10% inflation rate at a time i of high inflation largely due to the Ukraine war and you get an inflationary wage spiral which taxpayers have to fund via higher taxes
You are always praising the full inflation rate of pay which your party gives your pensioner voters. But of course they don't work, and nurses etc work so don't count for you.
There was an inflation linked increase for the state pension only and pensioners on the state pension only earn much less than nurses do. As do those on minimum wage, for whom there was also an inflation linked rise. Not for anyone earning above that
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
Slagging off the NHS is becoming a bit of a religion on here.
When you see Doctors out on strike , my sympathy for them and similarly for nurses plummets.. irrespective of how strong their case might be.
Agreed. I was making exactly the same point with regard to teachers last night.
The thing is, they probably value a pay rise/better conditions more than sympathy - and strikes are more effective at achieving the former, even if they cost a bit of the latter.
How about we all give pensioners triple locked sympathy increases each year and give the cash saved to public sector workers? A fair trade surely?
Given they complain about the lack of sympathy that sounds like a great deal for pensioners.
10% rise in my pension next month , and likely to get a pay rise into the bargain. Why you boys still moaning, why not become pensionsers.
Good morning Malc
I posted at the end of the last thread how spring like today is in Llandudno and hoped it was the same in Ayrshire (had lots of great holidays in Largs)
However I did ask has it been revealed why Sturgeon suddenly did a runner ?
I look forward to your views
Best
"done a runner"?
Really? Getting a bit imaginative, surely.
She's still there. Not like, say, Mr Stonehouse.
The way she resigned gave that impression
How else would you like her to resign? A little bit at a time? You do it suddenly, if it's at your own choosing. Like Harold Wilson.
I am fine with any option but it certainly has plunged the SNP into a crisis
And what on earth was Yousaf doing asking a group of Ukrainian women 'where are all the men'
Utterly unbelievable and crass
I didn't see this, but aren't you just trying to find the worst possible interpretation?
Yeah, as if nobody on your side never does that to your political opponents.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
I got 7% and a £1200 one off cozzy livs from my employer in 2022 (We run alongside the actual year, not the FY). It's not a million miles off £1655 and 5%.
Baking the £1655 in fully for the lowest paid staff with a tapering element so that for each £30 above the lowest paid (£20k ?) someone earns the one off element is increased by £1 and the salary element decreased by £1 might be an idea if the offer is rejected.
That'd mean 5% + £1655 for NHS employees on £70k and a larger % + a bit less one off for employees below (Same as current in cash terms, better in ongoing terms)
Slagging off the NHS is becoming a bit of a religion on here.
When you see Doctors out on strike , my sympathy for them and similarly for nurses plummets.. irrespective of how strong their case might be.
Agreed. I was making exactly the same point with regard to teachers last night.
The thing is, they probably value a pay rise/better conditions more than sympathy - and strikes are more effective at achieving the former, even if they cost a bit of the latter.
How about we all give pensioners triple locked sympathy increases each year and give the cash saved to public sector workers? A fair trade surely?
Given they complain about the lack of sympathy that sounds like a great deal for pensioners.
10% rise in my pension next month , and likely to get a pay rise into the bargain. Why you boys still moaning, why not become pensionsers.
Good morning Malc
I posted at the end of the last thread how spring like today is in Llandudno and hoped it was the same in Ayrshire (had lots of great holidays in Largs)
However I did ask has it been revealed why Sturgeon suddenly did a runner ?
I look forward to your views
Best
"done a runner"?
Really? Getting a bit imaginative, surely.
She's still there. Not like, say, Mr Stonehouse.
The way she resigned gave that impression
How else would you like her to resign? A little bit at a time? You do it suddenly, if it's at your own choosing. Like Harold Wilson.
I am fine with any option but it certainly has plunged the SNP into a crisis
And what on earth was Yousaf doing asking a group of Ukrainian women 'where are all the men'
Utterly unbelievable and crass
I didn't see this, but aren't you just trying to find the worst possible interpretation?
Yeah, as if nobody on your side never does that to your political opponents.
Doesn#t' mean it's a question that shouldn't be asked. PBTories are alwasys complaining about media gotchas.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
I never employ law graduates in my law firm if I can help it. Every piece of advice reads like it’s been written for their tutor. The ability to put across complex issues in an easily understandable manner is far more important.
Have I missed our Cheltenham advisors? Or have they simply gone broke?
10:32 below. You missed one winner. Never mind 🙂
Cheltenham Gold Cup 3.30 superstar Galopin Des Champs with an extra finishing gear over rivals at the moment in my opinion. It will amble around in background not looking special, but will show a Constitution Hillesque finish to get up to win. However, if you prefer longer odds e/w bet on Hewick I suggest as outsider most likely to cause a surprise by coming second, lightly raced this season but shown class previously in what is still early in a career.
Lossiemouth 1.30 Highway One O Two 2.10 Vaucelet 4.10
Anything at single figure prices doesn't count, MR! But well done anyway.
Ohh I got exited there on at 100-1 and pulling away between second to last hurdle.
LibDem hold in Cottenham (South Cambridgeshire) Con gain from SNP in Dunblane & Bridge of Allan (Stirling)
LibDems hung on in Cottenham, seeing a big decline in their margin of victory over the Cons. Possible factors include Labour reappearing on the candidate list, and the Cons making much of traffic restrictions in Cambridge, being put in by the LibDem/Lab county council. Greens also suffered a drop in vote share.
In Stirling, like Edinburgh last week, the gain is not as impressive as it might seem at first sight. The normal election was for four seats via STV; the Cons led on first preferences with the SNP second, so the Cons were always likely to gain this one. Still, a gain's a gain.
Overall, this was a good week for the Cons. They don't often get a score above zero on the Good Week/Bad Week Index, and leading the week is even less common.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
I never employ law graduates in my law firm if I can help it. Every piece of advice reads like it’s been written for their tutor. The ability to put across complex issues in an easily understandable manner is far more important.
Yes but even non law graduates have to study a law conversion course, which does have high fees too
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
I never employ law graduates in my law firm if I can help it. Every piece of advice reads like it’s been written for their tutor. The ability to put across complex issues in an easily understandable manner is far more important.
Hmmmm - Elephant seals for the big cases (obvious), sea lions for the crowd pleasing court room theatrics….. Leopard seals for when you really want to eat the oppositions lunch?
Slagging off the NHS is becoming a bit of a religion on here.
When you see Doctors out on strike , my sympathy for them and similarly for nurses plummets.. irrespective of how strong their case might be.
Agreed. I was making exactly the same point with regard to teachers last night.
The thing is, they probably value a pay rise/better conditions more than sympathy - and strikes are more effective at achieving the former, even if they cost a bit of the latter.
How about we all give pensioners triple locked sympathy increases each year and give the cash saved to public sector workers? A fair trade surely?
Given they complain about the lack of sympathy that sounds like a great deal for pensioners.
10% rise in my pension next month , and likely to get a pay rise into the bargain. Why you boys still moaning, why not become pensionsers.
Good morning Malc
I posted at the end of the last thread how spring like today is in Llandudno and hoped it was the same in Ayrshire (had lots of great holidays in Largs)
However I did ask has it been revealed why Sturgeon suddenly did a runner ?
I look forward to your views
Best
"done a runner"?
Really? Getting a bit imaginative, surely.
She's still there. Not like, say, Mr Stonehouse.
The way she resigned gave that impression
How else would you like her to resign? A little bit at a time? You do it suddenly, if it's at your own choosing. Like Harold Wilson.
I am fine with any option but it certainly has plunged the SNP into a crisis
And what on earth was Yousaf doing asking a group of Ukrainian women 'where are all the men'
Utterly unbelievable and crass
I didn't see this, but aren't you just trying to find the worst possible interpretation?
Yeah, as if nobody on your side never does that to your political opponents.
Doesn#t' mean it's a question that shouldn't be asked. PBTories are alwasys complaining about media gotchas.
Oh, it was always obviously a media gotcha. But the moment they do that to someone on the left, suddenly the complaints start.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
I never employ law graduates in my law firm if I can help it. Every piece of advice reads like it’s been written for their tutor. The ability to put across complex issues in an easily understandable manner is far more important.
Hmmmm - Elephant seals for the big cases (obvious), sea lions for the crowd pleasing court room theatrics….. Leopard seals for when you really want to eat the oppositions lunch?
Slagging off the NHS is becoming a bit of a religion on here.
When you see Doctors out on strike , my sympathy for them and similarly for nurses plummets.. irrespective of how strong their case might be.
Agreed. I was making exactly the same point with regard to teachers last night.
The thing is, they probably value a pay rise/better conditions more than sympathy - and strikes are more effective at achieving the former, even if they cost a bit of the latter.
How about we all give pensioners triple locked sympathy increases each year and give the cash saved to public sector workers? A fair trade surely?
Given they complain about the lack of sympathy that sounds like a great deal for pensioners.
10% rise in my pension next month , and likely to get a pay rise into the bargain. Why you boys still moaning, why not become pensionsers.
Good morning Malc
I posted at the end of the last thread how spring like today is in Llandudno and hoped it was the same in Ayrshire (had lots of great holidays in Largs)
However I did ask has it been revealed why Sturgeon suddenly did a runner ?
I look forward to your views
Best
"done a runner"?
Really? Getting a bit imaginative, surely.
She's still there. Not like, say, Mr Stonehouse.
The way she resigned gave that impression
How else would you like her to resign? A little bit at a time? You do it suddenly, if it's at your own choosing. Like Harold Wilson.
I am fine with any option but it certainly has plunged the SNP into a crisis
And what on earth was Yousaf doing asking a group of Ukrainian women 'where are all the men'
Utterly unbelievable and crass
I didn't see this, but aren't you just trying to find the worst possible interpretation?
Yeah, as if nobody on your side never does that to your political opponents.
Doesn#t' mean it's a question that shouldn't be asked. PBTories are alwasys complaining about media gotchas.
Oh, it was always obviously a media gotcha. But the moment they do that to someone on the left, suddenly the complaints start.
I wasn't actually complaining one way or another - just inquiring into how it did happen.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
I never employ law graduates in my law firm if I can help it. Every piece of advice reads like it’s been written for their tutor. The ability to put across complex issues in an easily understandable manner is far more important.
Hmmmm - Elephant seals for the big cases (obvious), sea lions for the crowd pleasing court room theatrics….. Leopard seals for when you really want to eat the oppositions lunch?
And fur seals for the furensic stuff.
Walruses for the card that are so old they are getting long in the tooth?
Have I missed our Cheltenham advisors? Or have they simply gone broke?
10:32 below. You missed one winner. Never mind 🙂
Cheltenham Gold Cup 3.30 superstar Galopin Des Champs with an extra finishing gear over rivals at the moment in my opinion. It will amble around in background not looking special, but will show a Constitution Hillesque finish to get up to win. However, if you prefer longer odds e/w bet on Hewick I suggest as outsider most likely to cause a surprise by coming second, lightly raced this season but shown class previously in what is still early in a career.
Lossiemouth 1.30 Highway One O Two 2.10 Vaucelet 4.10
Anything at single figure prices doesn't count, MR! But well done anyway.
Ohh I got exited there on at 100-1 and pulling away between second to last hurdle.
Delighted for Bridget Andrews.
Many years ago when she was barely out of school she rode a winner on a horse called Sovereign Spirit in which I owned a small share. We hadn't expected it to win but she did.
She's a super horsewoman, and delightfully modest.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
We had leading universities for decades without students having to pay for them. The change to student fees was a political/philosophical decision and not an inevitable one.
Have I missed our Cheltenham advisors? Or have they simply gone broke?
10:32 below. You missed one winner. Never mind 🙂
Cheltenham Gold Cup 3.30 superstar Galopin Des Champs with an extra finishing gear over rivals at the moment in my opinion. It will amble around in background not looking special, but will show a Constitution Hillesque finish to get up to win. However, if you prefer longer odds e/w bet on Hewick I suggest as outsider most likely to cause a surprise by coming second, lightly raced this season but shown class previously in what is still early in a career.
Lossiemouth 1.30 Highway One O Two 2.10 Vaucelet 4.10
Anything at single figure prices doesn't count, MR! But well done anyway.
Ohh I got exited there on at 100-1 and pulling away between second to last hurdle.
Delighted for Bridget Andrews.
Many years ago when she was barely out of school she rode a winner on a horse called Sovereign Spirit in which I owned a small share. We hadn't expected it to win but she did.
She's a super horsewoman, and delightfully modest.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
We had leading universities for decades without students having to pay for them. The change to student fees was a political/philosophical decision and not an inevitable one.
Relative to US colleges they were declining as the top professors and researchers went to the US as they were paid more
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
Surely if you're a capitalist, everyone should be able to charge whatever the market will tolerate, from the humblest pusher on the street corner to the swankiest Professor at Oxtail University?
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
I'm sure the argument for raising the fees to £9k was that universities would compete on price.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
Surely if you're a capitalist, everyone should be able to charge whatever the market will tolerate, from the humblest pusher on the street corner to the swankiest Professor at Oxtail University?
Which would lead to the same result, as students would pay a fortune to study economics or medicine at Cambridge or engineering at Imperial or law at Oxford.
However they would pay peanuts to study history or creative arts or sociology at Leeds Trinity University or the University of East London or De Montfort
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
Surely if you're a capitalist, everyone should be able to charge whatever the market will tolerate, from the humblest pusher on the street corner to the swankiest Professor at Oxtail University?
Which would lead to the same result, as students would pay a fortune to study economics or medicine at Cambridge or engineering at Imperial or law at Oxford.
However they would pay peanuts to study history or creative arts or sociology at Manchester Metropolitan University or the University of East London or Bradford
You really can't understand the simplest thing that's said to you, can you?
Slagging off the NHS is becoming a bit of a religion on here.
When you see Doctors out on strike , my sympathy for them and similarly for nurses plummets.. irrespective of how strong their case might be.
Agreed. I was making exactly the same point with regard to teachers last night.
The thing is, they probably value a pay rise/better conditions more than sympathy - and strikes are more effective at achieving the former, even if they cost a bit of the latter.
How about we all give pensioners triple locked sympathy increases each year and give the cash saved to public sector workers? A fair trade surely?
Given they complain about the lack of sympathy that sounds like a great deal for pensioners.
Think the elderly would get more sympathy if for once they would admit that buying a property doesnt depend on going without a few takeaway coffees. But they wont.
The elderly, like the young, do not exist as a single entity. Of course the elderly do not think that is the case. A few may do but they are hardly representative of the elderly as a group.
If the elderly came out and said look we think property prices are too high they would get more respect. But strangely many when they do put their house on the market prefer to withdraw it again rather than accept a realistic offer. Thats just pure greed.
The problem with housing is we need to build more.
So we get the bizarre scenario of an MP like Layla Moran bemoaning the lack of homes in her area for Ukrainian refugees yet opposing many housing developments to pander to NIMBYs.
We also need to build where the homes are needed.
Why should people be expected to sell their homes at a price they don’t want to. I really doubt the scenario you paint is what happens in large numbers.
Oxford West & Abingdon is Nimby Central -- all those chattering LibDems in enormous Victorian or Edwardian houses worried about their historic neighbourhoods.
When I lived in OXWAB, the local Residents Group was the most active semi-fascist group I have so far encountered. It routinely objected to anything whatsoever that changed the neighbourhood.
Whilst new builds are needed, we could also make better use of existing housing stock:
1. By penalizing singletons who live in enormous houses 2. By penalizing second homers.
Inefficient use of our housing stock should be discouraged through a property tax (as in that very left-wing country, the USA ).
The existing Council Tax fails to do this. In fact, it does the opposite. You get a 25 % discount if you are on your own in a huge property.
Build enough "enormous houses" that we can go back to the days when a 3 bed semi was what poor people lived in.
A 3 bed semi was what EVERYONE lived in. I grew up in by some measures the most middle class constituency in the country - Cheadle - I'd say the majority of the housing stock was post war 3BSs.
That said, much though I yearn for the days when a 3BS in an ok area could be bought on a single teacher's salary, I don't think they're necessarily great houses - either in terms of aesthetics, internal layouts, or efficiency. We can do better.
It's alarming that houses like that (mine's interwar and terraces of four, hundreds of them, one after the other, but the same basic idea) are generally more desirable than almost anything built more recently. Because there are significant bits of rubbishness about them- from the poor insulation to the alleyways that nobody ever drives down because they're too narrow.
And since they're not building Georgian-proportioned garden squares, I'm not going to be able to live somewhere where I can re-enact the whole Hugh Grant / Julia Roberts thing from Notting Hill. Hey ho.
During a visit to France, Mark Drakeford said he was moved by the Pennal letter sent by Owain Glyndŵr to the king of France, Charles VI, in 1406 asking for help in his fight against English rule...
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
If students want to study any course at any university they should be free to do so as long as they pay the market rate.
The state should only pay fees for subjects where there may be a shortage of applicants but the nation needs eg social work
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
Surely if you're a capitalist, everyone should be able to charge whatever the market will tolerate, from the humblest pusher on the street corner to the swankiest Professor at Oxtail University?
Which would lead to the same result, as students would pay a fortune to study economics or medicine at Cambridge or engineering at Imperial or law at Oxford.
However they would pay peanuts to study history or creative arts or sociology at Manchester Metropolitan University or the University of East London or Bradford
You really can't understand the simplest thing that's said to you, can you?
Clearly you can't abide anybody pointing out a contrary argument to your leftist ideology!
During a visit to France, Mark Drakeford said he was moved by the Pennal letter sent by Owain Glyndŵr to the king of France, Charles VI, in 1406 asking for help in his fight against English rule...
This would be the same Wales that voted for Brexit!
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
I'm sure the argument for raising the fees to £9k was that universities would compete on price.
Oops.
Judging by my last visit to Warwick campus it all seems to have gone on flash new buildings.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
Surely if you're a capitalist, everyone should be able to charge whatever the market will tolerate, from the humblest pusher on the street corner to the swankiest Professor at Oxtail University?
Which would lead to the same result, as students would pay a fortune to study economics or medicine at Cambridge or engineering at Imperial or law at Oxford.
However they would pay peanuts to study history or creative arts or sociology at Manchester Metropolitan University or the University of East London or Bradford
You really can't understand the simplest thing that's said to you, can you?
Clearly you can't abide anybody pointing out a contrary argument to your leftist ideology!
I'll give you this, though - your powers of imagination are clearly unimpaired - "leftist ideology", indeed! Or perhaps you're simply hallucinating.
During a visit to France, Mark Drakeford said he was moved by the Pennal letter sent by Owain Glyndŵr to the king of France, Charles VI, in 1406 asking for help in his fight against English rule...
This would be the same Wales that voted for Brexit!
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
During a visit to France, Mark Drakeford said he was moved by the Pennal letter sent by Owain Glyndŵr to the king of France, Charles VI, in 1406 asking for help in his fight against English rule...
This would be the same Wales that voted for Brexit!
And the same Drakeford who supports the Union.
He's just not very keen on the English.
Yes, he is fine with Welsh Labour MPs helping overturn an English Conservative majority in England and with Wales having its own Parliament. Just as long as England doesn't get the same
During a visit to France, Mark Drakeford said he was moved by the Pennal letter sent by Owain Glyndŵr to the king of France, Charles VI, in 1406 asking for help in his fight against English rule...
This would be the same Wales that voted for Brexit!
And the same Drakeford who supports the Union.
He's just not very keen on the English.
Yes, he is fine with Welsh Labour MPs helping overturn an English Conservative majority in England and with Wales having its own Parliament. Just as long as England doesn't get the same
During a visit to France, Mark Drakeford said he was moved by the Pennal letter sent by Owain Glyndŵr to the king of France, Charles VI, in 1406 asking for help in his fight against English rule...
This would be the same Wales that voted for Brexit!
And the same Drakeford who supports the Union.
He's just not very keen on the English.
Not fair. Her's not very keen on being ordered about by people Wales didn't vote for. Not the same thing.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
Slagging off the NHS is becoming a bit of a religion on here.
When you see Doctors out on strike , my sympathy for them and similarly for nurses plummets.. irrespective of how strong their case might be.
Agreed. I was making exactly the same point with regard to teachers last night.
The thing is, they probably value a pay rise/better conditions more than sympathy - and strikes are more effective at achieving the former, even if they cost a bit of the latter.
How about we all give pensioners triple locked sympathy increases each year and give the cash saved to public sector workers? A fair trade surely?
Given they complain about the lack of sympathy that sounds like a great deal for pensioners.
Think the elderly would get more sympathy if for once they would admit that buying a property doesnt depend on going without a few takeaway coffees. But they wont.
The elderly, like the young, do not exist as a single entity. Of course the elderly do not think that is the case. A few may do but they are hardly representative of the elderly as a group.
If the elderly came out and said look we think property prices are too high they would get more respect. But strangely many when they do put their house on the market prefer to withdraw it again rather than accept a realistic offer. Thats just pure greed.
The problem with housing is we need to build more.
So we get the bizarre scenario of an MP like Layla Moran bemoaning the lack of homes in her area for Ukrainian refugees yet opposing many housing developments to pander to NIMBYs.
We also need to build where the homes are needed.
Why should people be expected to sell their homes at a price they don’t want to. I really doubt the scenario you paint is what happens in large numbers.
Oxford West & Abingdon is Nimby Central -- all those chattering LibDems in enormous Victorian or Edwardian houses worried about their historic neighbourhoods.
When I lived in OXWAB, the local Residents Group was the most active semi-fascist group I have so far encountered. It routinely objected to anything whatsoever that changed the neighbourhood.
Whilst new builds are needed, we could also make better use of existing housing stock:
1. By penalizing singletons who live in enormous houses 2. By penalizing second homers.
Inefficient use of our housing stock should be discouraged through a property tax (as in that very left-wing country, the USA ).
The existing Council Tax fails to do this. In fact, it does the opposite. You get a 25 % discount if you are on your own in a huge property.
Build enough "enormous houses" that we can go back to the days when a 3 bed semi was what poor people lived in.
A 3 bed semi was what EVERYONE lived in. I grew up in by some measures the most middle class constituency in the country - Cheadle - I'd say the majority of the housing stock was post war 3BSs.
That said, much though I yearn for the days when a 3BS in an ok area could be bought on a single teacher's salary, I don't think they're necessarily great houses - either in terms of aesthetics, internal layouts, or efficiency. We can do better.
It's alarming that houses like that (mine's interwar and terraces of four, hundreds of them, one after the other, but the same basic idea) are generally more desirable than almost anything built more recently. Because there are significant bits of rubbishness about them- from the poor insulation to the alleyways that nobody ever drives down because they're too narrow.
And since they're not building Georgian-proportioned garden squares, I'm not going to be able to live somewhere where I can re-enact the whole Hugh Grant / Julia Roberts thing from Notting Hill. Hey ho.
I'd say something similar to that ought to be the ideal model - albeit built to modern standards of insulation (including sound insulation!), and with well thought out solutions to car parking.
One of my beefs about post war three bed semis is the ridiculous smallness of the third bedroom. Were we building for a race of people who always had one tiny child?
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
I would far rather my three kids have access to an apprenticeship than a place at university.
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
Which party is proposing that?
Well, none of them. But my point is that I would expect such an offer to be politically popular. I don't think the electorate is particularly enthused by 50% of children going to university.
Comments
Although I hope... (shudders) you're not going to Peppa Pig World... ?
Essentially, since the dawn of armoured vehicles, you go through
1) We need something with more armour and more firepower
2) We also need a scout vehicle
3) We need it to be light (these days airmobile)
4) We need it to survive all kind of threats.
5) To save money, the fighting vehicle and scout vehicle are the same
17) why does it weigh more than a tank? Make it lighter
18) now it has no weapons. And carries too few soldiers.
19) Got to 1)
The IFV you get is purely down to where the merry-go-round stopped in the loop.
Which is why some say, just buy a main battle tank with the turret removed for the fighting vehicle (see Namer) and drive it over the bodies of the "it must be airmobile" types.
The scouts get a bunch of different vehicles, from motorcycles up. Electric motorcycles are apparently being used by the Ukrainians - fast, manoeuvrable and very quiet.
But I've run out of cash for the week myself.
..Downing Street says the improve pay offer for health workers in England announced yesterday will cost around £4bn.
At the morning lobby briefing, a No 10 spokesperson said the “non-consolidated element for 2022-23” – the one-off payments worth up to 8.2% – would cost an extra £2.7bn.
And he said the “consolidated element for 2023-24” – the 5% pay rise – would cost around £1.3bn.
The spokesperson would not say how the £4bn would be funded. The health department will be discussing this with the Treasury, he said...
Government ‘to cut £250m from social care workforce funding’ in England
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/17/government-to-cut-250m-from-social-care-workforce-funding-in-england-report-says
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
When I lived in OXWAB, the local Residents Group was the most active semi-fascist group I have so far encountered. It routinely objected to anything whatsoever that changed the neighbourhood.
Whilst new builds are needed, we could also make better use of existing housing stock:
1. By penalizing singletons who live in enormous houses
2. By penalizing second homers.
Inefficient use of our housing stock should be discouraged through a property tax (as in that very left-wing country, the USA
The existing Council Tax fails to do this. In fact, it does the opposite. You get a 25 % discount if you are on your own in a huge property.
Of course, there is a lot to Paulton's Park besides PPW, and as I remember it almost all of it was completely bereft of queues. My middle daughter, then three, had her first roller coaster experience on the Frog there. "I not sure about dis" became "wheeeeee!". We went on it seven consecutive times. A golden memory.
Conforming Macron is effectively now a centre right President albeit a liberal one
It is a one off bonus, as I said.
Also you should be 'adding' it to the 3.5% award for 2022-23.
The 5% is for the period 2023-24.
You are either confused, or being disingenuous.
As for second-home owners - bring it on. Make them pay for their privilege.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
Thanks for contacting us about Gary Lineker.
BBC Director-General, Tim Davie, has released a statement regarding Gary’s use of social media. In it, he’s said the following:
“Everyone recognises this has been a difficult period for staff, contributors, presenters and, most importantly, our audiences. I apologise for this. The potential confusion caused by the grey areas of the BBC’s social media guidance that was introduced in 2020 is recognised. I want to get matters resolved and our sport content back on air.
“Impartiality is important to the BBC. It is also important to the public. The BBC has a commitment to impartiality in its Charter and a commitment to freedom of expression. That is a difficult balancing act to get right where people are subject to different contracts and on air positions, and with different audience and social media profiles. The BBC’s social media guidance is designed to help manage these sometimes difficult challenges and I am aware there is a need to ensure that the guidance is up to this task. It should be clear, proportionate, and appropriate.
“Accordingly, we are announcing a review led by an independent expert – reporting to the BBC – on its existing social media guidance, with a particular focus on how it applies to freelancers outside news and current affairs. The BBC and myself are aware that Gary is in favour of such a review.
“Shortly, the BBC will announce who will conduct that review. Whilst this work is undertaken, the BBC’s current social media guidance remains in place.
“Gary is a valued part of the BBC and I know how much the BBC means to Gary, and I look forward to him presenting our coverage this coming weekend.”
Gary himself has also commented on the matter, stating: “I am glad that we have found a way forward. I support this review and look forward to getting back on air.”
We’re aware that some have raised a variety of issues aside from Gary’s social media specifically, and we’re sorry that we’re not able to address all of these matters in our response here. If you’ve raised wider concerns in your complaint, responses to a range of these matters will be posted publicly on our website at the address below, which will be updated in the coming weeks:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/recent-complaints
We’d like to thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us. We recognise the strength of feeling these issues have provoked across our audience. We’d like to reassure you that this has been heard and discussed across all levels of the BBC.
That said, much though I yearn for the days when a 3BS in an ok area could be bought on a single teacher's salary, I don't think they're necessarily great houses - either in terms of aesthetics, internal layouts, or efficiency. We can do better.
Yet as an article in the FT points out today, continental Europe is building more new properties per head than us as they are more willing to live in flats and apartments than the Anglosphere
https://www.ft.com/content/dca3f034-bfe8-4f21-bcdc-2b274053f0b5
https://twitter.com/Gaylussite/status/1636666453725175808?s=20
https://twitter.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1636551013489418241
TL:DR; the stronk Russian pilot was so unbelievably stronk he hit the drone. And the Russians are lying about everything. Except perhaps that the planes were in the air...
patent EW singles, doubles & treble
2:50 Three Card Brag
3:30 Bravemansgame
5:30 Irish Hill
So, this would target single people living in big properties.
And it would retain the discount if you are a single person living in a more modest property.
Apparently the guidance doesn't match the guidelines, which is an impressively BBC way to organise things...
Controlled that race. Despite a horse getting too friendly halfway round.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
For someone on £30k in the NHS, the bonus equates to about 5% on top of the 3.5% headline
Polishing turds again, i see.
Cheltenham Gold Cup 3.30 superstar Galopin Des Champs with an extra finishing gear over rivals at the moment in my opinion. It will amble around in background not looking special, but will show a Constitution Hillesque finish to get up to win.
However, if you prefer longer odds e/w bet on Hewick I suggest as outsider most likely to cause a surprise by coming second, lightly raced this season but shown class previously in what is still early in a career.
Lossiemouth 1.30
Highway One O Two 2.10
Vaucelet 4.10
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Your kind mesage reached me through Cheltboy et al. Many thanks.
Paul cleaned up yesterday. How did you go?
Good luck today.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2023/world-ranking
Explain to me why you are treating the one off bonus as a "pay rise" please.
Contractually, and for the purpose of the next year's pay award, and every year after that, it isn't. It is a bonus, which disappears after the current year - unlike a pay rise, which becomes part of the base pay for next year's calculation.
Your spiel about taxpayers is just the usual distraction from you; I'm not interested.
If we'd been arguing about justification, it might be relevant. When we're discussing the facts of the award, it isn't.
Increase public sector wages over 10% inflation rate at a time i
of high inflation largely due to the Ukraine war and you get an inflationary wage spiral which taxpayers have to fund via higher taxes
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
I simply pointed out that you are either a fool or a liar.
Yesterday was horrible.
Off to a bad start today...
That'd mean 5% + £1655 for NHS employees on £70k and a larger % + a bit less one off for employees below (Same as current in cash terms, better in ongoing terms)
BROADEST SHOULDERS and all that.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
LibDem hold in Cottenham (South Cambridgeshire)
Con gain from SNP in Dunblane & Bridge of Allan (Stirling)
LibDems hung on in Cottenham, seeing a big decline in their margin of victory over the Cons. Possible factors include Labour reappearing on the candidate list, and the Cons making much of traffic restrictions in Cambridge, being put in by the LibDem/Lab county council. Greens also suffered a drop in vote share.
In Stirling, like Edinburgh last week, the gain is not as impressive as it might seem at first sight. The normal election was for four seats via STV; the Cons led on first preferences with the SNP second, so the Cons were always likely to gain this one. Still, a gain's a gain.
Overall, this was a good week for the Cons. They don't often get a score above zero on the Good Week/Bad Week Index, and leading the week is even less common.
Good Week/Bad Week Index
Con +53
SNP +9
Lab -5
LDm -5
Grn -18
Adjusted Seat Value
Con +1.1
SNP +0.1
LDm +0.1
Lab +0.0
Grn -0.5
For a full explanation of the GWBWI, see here: https://drinkentire.wordpress.com/2023/02/07/the-good-week-bad-week-index/
Many years ago when she was barely out of school she rode a winner on a horse called Sovereign Spirit in which I owned a small share. We hadn't expected it to win but she did.
She's a super horsewoman, and delightfully modest.
declining as the top professors and researchers went to the US as they were paid more
Oops.
However they would pay peanuts to study history or creative arts or sociology at Leeds Trinity University or the University of East London or De Montfort
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students.
The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
And since they're not building Georgian-proportioned garden squares, I'm not going to be able to live somewhere where I can re-enact the whole Hugh Grant / Julia Roberts thing from Notting Hill. Hey ho.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/17/mark-drakeford-pennal-letter-owain-glyndwr-welsh-french-help-fighting-english
The Welsh first minister has spoken of his emotion at the “contemporary resonances” he perceived in a letter written by a 15th-century Prince of Wales envisioning a country free from the rule of the “barbarous” English.
During a visit to France, Mark Drakeford said he was moved by the Pennal letter sent by Owain Glyndŵr to the king of France, Charles VI, in 1406 asking for help in his fight against English rule...
The state should only pay fees for subjects where there may be a shortage of applicants but the nation needs eg social work
FTSE 100 now down 10% from its >8000 high.
He's just not very keen on the English.
I think the biggest problem for Sunak is that his Success in the NHS goalposts are on wheels.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
One of my beefs about post war three bed semis is the ridiculous smallness of the third bedroom. Were we building for a race of people who always had one tiny child?
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.