As I keep repeating, JD Vance 2014 was not a bad guy.
JD Vance on Justice Scalia in 2014. "He's become a very shrill old man. I used to really like him, and I used to believe all of his stuff about judicial minimalism was sincere. Now I see it as a political charade." https://x.com/JoshMBlackman/status/1817581641214398877
Trumpism has driven significant chunk of the Republican party completely insane.
Trump is as much symptom as cause: they were going this way anyway.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
Simple, just have government set the maximum fees that can be charged by each university. So the lowest ranked universities are banned from charging as high fees as Oxbridge and Imperial and LSE can for instance unless in exceptional courses they can show have a well above average graduate earnings premium
Alternatively, get the government out of higher education completely, and let the college, the bank, and the student agree on a funding model. If the student ends up bankrupt after graduation, then the university and the bank have to sort things out between themselves.
Oxbridge colleges will then charge £30k per year, and the local polytechnic about £2.50.
The local polytechnics won't exist...
They’ll either go back to much more vocational courses, or work with businesses on degree apprenticeships.
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
The Brynglas Tunnels were a major bottleneck from the day the new Severn Bridge opened in the ‘90s, and their replacement or bypass really should have been thought about at the same time.
The A303 past Stonehenge has been a massive bottleneck for even longer, especially in the summer evenings. I remember being in the queue for what felt like hours as a kid in the ‘80s. Someone needs to decide to either start digging the tunnel or dual the existing road, then JFDI.
So much of the national infrastructure can be improved by eliminating a small number of these transport pinch points.
The problem with removing those pinch points is that it will simply reveal another issue further on...
I actually heard a valid argument for HS3 going to Wales a couple of weeks ago - the current rail tunnels are so old that the next set of maintenance will take years/ a decade to complete. So the plan would be:
1) build new tunnel to HS spec, 2) route trains into new tunnel 3) refurbish old tunnel 4) build new line
The reason for 3/4 is that the expensive bit is the new tunnel everything else is cheap compared to that tunnel..
A303 has been duelled for the rest of its route already (or soon will be completed).
No it hasn't. As things stand building the Stonehenge bypass would just move the queue 10 miles west to the end of the Wylye Bypass.
Only improvement since 1990 is the under construction 2 mile link between Sparkford and Ilchester bypasses (without building the Ilchester bypass flyover)
First thing Bliar did in 1997 was can Ilminster to Honiton dualling which was ready to start with all approvals.
The fact that you are persisting with “bliar” more than 15 years since he retired says more about you than about him.
5.5% rise which will be pensionable for their index linked defined benefit pensions that are worth about four times more than a private sector defined contribution pension.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
In 30 years time we'll be bemoaning the unbreakable Labour - LibDem two-party system (the LDs having quietly dropped their PR policy for... reasons).
Given just 12% voted LD on 4th July and 24% voted Tory and 14% even voted Reform highly unlikely. Combined the Tories and Reform on 38% were even higher than Labour on 33%
Please stop combining conservative and reform votes - it is wholly misleading and silly
I was about to post the same and for two reasons:
a) if you are going to combine Tory and Reform, why not combine Lab, LD and Green? It would be daft but consistent.
b) When knocking up for the LDs in Guildford on election day we are obviously only knocking up our confirmed voters. My personal results from several hundred houses knocked on were:
A very large number of LDs obviously 1 Tory 0 Labour (although several made the point that they were voting LD tactically) 1 not voting (whom I almost convinced to vote) A dozen or so Reform
Others reported the same trend re confirmed LDs voting Reform
These Reform voters had said they were going to vote LD. There were lots of them swayed by the Reform message. I am assuming these are disaffected voters, but if the LDs were losing them to Reform, how many would Labour have had in that boat as well as it is not like there is much overlap between LD and Reform.
So to claim Reform voters can be put in the same pile as Tories is wrong.
Not all of them no but the majority of those Reform voters would have voted for Boris in 2019, even in Guildford and even if they had said before they were going LD this time. Most of them would have voted Leave in 2016 as well, Guildford as a whole voted Remain though so it was Remainers who won it for the LDs
Well I wouldn't dispute anything you have said there. I agree the majority is probably Tory. But a majority is a lot different to adding 100% of them which you have done and you could do the same with Lab, LD and Green which just cancels out the whole proposition. And yes Remain was a factor in the areas where the LDs won, although I believe Surrey Heath voted Leave and still went LD so it isn't as simple as that.
It is just the adding of 100% of the Reform vote to Tory and completely ignoring the Lab/LD/Green side of the equation which is the issue. Remember before the election you were doing the same assuming the majority of Reform would vote Tory. They didn't
You need both I agree, 2019 Tories defecting to Labour and LD in 2024 as well as to Reform.
On the above poll Tugendhat seems to have to best chance of winning them back, Patel the worst
I love the fact that for many years now we have very civilised conversation even when disagreeing and I am embarrassed by some of my posts from many years ago. I also think a lot of that is to your credit and not so much mine and done without you changing your political views at all which are often different to mine. It is nice to disagree but stay friendly which is clearly achievable.
5.5% rise which will be pensionable for their index linked defined benefit pensions that are worth about four times more than a private sector defined contribution pension.
Pull up the drawbridge Jack
Why would people save for a private pension then?
I pointed out last week - unless you own your own home there is zero point putting money into a pension only to watch it disappear as you pay rent to a landlord...
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
Simple, just have government set the maximum fees that can be charged by each university. So the lowest ranked universities are banned from charging as high fees as Oxbridge and Imperial and LSE can for instance unless in exceptional courses they can show have a well above average graduate earnings premium
Alternatively, get the government out of higher education completely, and let the college, the bank, and the student agree on a funding model. If the student ends up bankrupt after graduation, then the university and the bank have to sort things out between themselves.
Oxbridge colleges will then charge £30k per year, and the local polytechnic about £2.50.
The local polytechnics won't exist...
They’ll either go back to much more vocational courses, or work with businesses on degree apprenticeships.
Except vocational courses are expensive to run and degree apprenticeships are usually taught centrally online (which is way cheaper)...
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
David Gauke, the former justice secretary, has announced he has rejoined the Conservative Party.
A return purely in order to vote in the leadership election, and to provide the following ringing endorsement:
"This time, it may be a shorter period of membership (I clicked on the option to join for one year only rather than renewing automatically). But, for the moment, I am a Tory member again."
I strongly suspect he won't be a member this time next year, given his wing of the party's job is to lose leadership elections. But who knows - maybe enough will do likewise to make a difference.
Might as well wait till 1500 for it from Ms Reeves, instead of made up stuff in Sky and DT whioch is driving our PB rightwingers mad. Mind, it sure works as clickbait.
As I keep repeating, JD Vance 2014 was not a bad guy.
JD Vance on Justice Scalia in 2014. "He's become a very shrill old man. I used to really like him, and I used to believe all of his stuff about judicial minimalism was sincere. Now I see it as a political charade." https://x.com/JoshMBlackman/status/1817581641214398877
Trumpism has driven significant chunk of the Republican party completely insane.
Trump is as much symptom as cause: they were going this way anyway.
In 2012 there was a lot of analysis that if Romney lost the Republicans would pick a loon for 2016 and lose even more badly before recovering.
50% of that analysis was correct.
Unfortunately, the loon fluking a win means that the Republicans have drifted further and further from sanity.
David Gauke, the former justice secretary, has announced he has rejoined the Conservative Party.
A return purely in order to vote in the leadership election, and to provide the following ringing endorsement:
"This time, it may be a shorter period of membership (I clicked on the option to join for one year only rather than renewing automatically). But, for the moment, I am a Tory member again."
I strongly suspect he won't be a member this time next year, given his wing of the party's job is to lose leadership elections. But who knows - maybe enough will do likewise to make a difference.
I am not rejoining at this stage just to vote in a contest with such poor candidates
If the conservative party puts Reform behind it and promotes integrity, sound money, and fairness then that will be a different matter
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
Simple, just have government set the maximum fees that can be charged by each university. So the lowest ranked universities are banned from charging as high fees as Oxbridge and Imperial and LSE can for instance unless in exceptional courses they can show have a well above average graduate earnings premium
Alternatively, get the government out of higher education completely, and let the college, the bank, and the student agree on a funding model. If the student ends up bankrupt after graduation, then the university and the bank have to sort things out between themselves.
Oxbridge colleges will then charge £30k per year, and the local polytechnic about £2.50.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
Simple, just have government set the maximum fees that can be charged by each university. So the lowest ranked universities are banned from charging as high fees as Oxbridge and Imperial and LSE can for instance unless in exceptional courses they can show have a well above average graduate earnings premium
Alternatively, get the government out of higher education completely, and let the college, the bank, and the student agree on a funding model. If the student ends up bankrupt after graduation, then the university and the bank have to sort things out between themselves.
Oxbridge colleges will then charge £30k per year, and the local polytechnic about £2.50.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
Simple, just have government set the maximum fees that can be charged by each university. So the lowest ranked universities are banned from charging as high fees as Oxbridge and Imperial and LSE can for instance unless in exceptional courses they can show have a well above average graduate earnings premium
Alternatively, get the government out of higher education completely, and let the college, the bank, and the student agree on a funding model. If the student ends up bankrupt after graduation, then the university and the bank have to sort things out between themselves.
Oxbridge colleges will then charge £30k per year, and the local polytechnic about £2.50.
Or of course you could be really old fashioned and think that education is a public good and should be publicly funded because of all the good it does for society and the world in general. This has the knock on effect of delinking HE and FE from the desire to get rich with its accompanying cultural impoverishing, and distortions of the sector and the wider world, so that now we value things like making money out of money more than we do important things like growing carrots, and PR and advertising more than child care and helping old people live with dignity.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge
El régimen de Maduro debe entender que los resultados que publica son difíciles de creer. La comunidad internacional y sobre todo el pueblo venezolano, incluyendo a los millones de venezolanos en el exilio, exigimos total transparencia de las actas y el proceso, y que veedores internacionales no comprometidos con el gobierno den cuenta de la veracidad de los resultados.
Desde Chile no reconoceremos ningún resultado que no sea verificable.
(Google translated) The Maduro regime must understand that the results it publishes are difficult to believe. The international community and especially the Venezuelan people, including the millions of Venezuelans in exile, demand total transparency of the minutes and the process, and that international observers not committed to the government account for the veracity of the results.
Might as well wait till 1500 for it from Ms Reeves, instead of made up stuff in Sky and DT whioch is driving our PB rightwingers mad. Mind, it sure works as clickbait.
I really do not accept your rejection of Sky's reporting nor that the doctors are considering putting it to their members
It seems an offer has been made and I am not sure even why you are so upset about it
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
I don't have a problem with Oxbridge, indeed I think it is a wonderful thing that we have two of the greatest and most historic universities in the world. I was simply pointing out that Labour is not asking questions about why these institutions are so massively wealthy and I have provided a possible answer. The fact that you think that using an example is silly is *very silly* of you!
Question: How can you tell when there is an Oxbridge graduate in a chatroom? Answer: You will know because they will have already told you!
As I keep repeating, JD Vance 2014 was not a bad guy.
JD Vance on Justice Scalia in 2014. "He's become a very shrill old man. I used to really like him, and I used to believe all of his stuff about judicial minimalism was sincere. Now I see it as a political charade." https://x.com/JoshMBlackman/status/1817581641214398877
Trumpism has driven significant chunk of the Republican party completely insane.
Trump is as much symptom as cause: they were going this way anyway.
In 2012 there was a lot of analysis that if Romney lost the Republicans would pick a loon for 2016 and lose even more badly before recovering.
50% of that analysis was correct.
Unfortunately, the loon fluking a win means that the Republicans have drifted further and further from sanity.
Whereas had Romney won in 2012 there would never have been a Trump nomination let alone Presidency in 2016, Romney would have taken an even harder line on Putin than Obama did and run a fiscally conservative government focused on a balanced budget.
In retrospect it may have been better if Obama had been a one term President
El régimen de Maduro debe entender que los resultados que publica son difíciles de creer. La comunidad internacional y sobre todo el pueblo venezolano, incluyendo a los millones de venezolanos en el exilio, exigimos total transparencia de las actas y el proceso, y que veedores internacionales no comprometidos con el gobierno den cuenta de la veracidad de los resultados.
Desde Chile no reconoceremos ningún resultado que no sea verificable.
(Google translated) The Maduro regime must understand that the results it publishes are difficult to believe. The international community and especially the Venezuelan people, including the millions of Venezuelans in exile, demand total transparency of the minutes and the process, and that international observers not committed to the government account for the veracity of the results.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
I don't have a problem with Oxbridge, indeed I think it is a wonderful thing that we have two of the greatest and most historic universities in the world. I was simply pointing out that Labour is not asking questions about why these institutions are so massively wealthy and I have provided a possible answer. The fact that you think that using an example is silly is *very silly* of you!
Question: How can you tell when there is an Oxbridge graduate in a chatroom? Answer: You will know because they will have already told you!
Oxbridge are strange, in good and bad ways. The Govt does need policy around Oxbridge. But we were talking about university policy in general and whatever you do or don’t do with Oxbridge doesn’t answer the broader questions of undergraduate funding.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
Simple, just have government set the maximum fees that can be charged by each university. So the lowest ranked universities are banned from charging as high fees as Oxbridge and Imperial and LSE can for instance unless in exceptional courses they can show have a well above average graduate earnings premium
My god! Is your analysis on every area of life so simplistic? There are many "lower ranked" universities that (when considering individual courses) have higher levels of employability than Oxbridge. Indeed, many Oxbridge grads are not employed because of the value of their degree but because they have better family networks, or perhaps the school they went to previously. Using your perspective, Oxford should get more funding for their Classics courses than another university would get for teaching a course on applied computer engineering.
No because as I originally said fees would be linked to average graduate earnings premium. Yes that means Oxbridge and Imperial can charge the most fees relative to other universities but it also means courses like economics, law, IT, engineering, Medicine etc can charge more than other courses at any university
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
I don't have a problem with Oxbridge, indeed I think it is a wonderful thing that we have two of the greatest and most historic universities in the world. I was simply pointing out that Labour is not asking questions about why these institutions are so massively wealthy and I have provided a possible answer. The fact that you think that using an example is silly is *very silly* of you!
Question: How can you tell when there is an Oxbridge graduate in a chatroom? Answer: You will know because they will have already told you!
Oxbridge are strange, in good and bad ways. The Govt does need policy around Oxbridge. But we were talking about university policy in general and whatever you do or don’t do with Oxbridge doesn’t answer the broader questions of undergraduate funding.
The question that should be asked IMO is why such institutions need to charge fees at all and why they need government funding. https://www.ft.com/content/f1126d04-c0fc-11df-99c4-00144feab49a (note this article refers to "Cambridge University". More interesting is to look at the wealth of colleges, eg. Trinity.
As I keep repeating, JD Vance 2014 was not a bad guy.
JD Vance on Justice Scalia in 2014. "He's become a very shrill old man. I used to really like him, and I used to believe all of his stuff about judicial minimalism was sincere. Now I see it as a political charade." https://x.com/JoshMBlackman/status/1817581641214398877
Trumpism has driven significant chunk of the Republican party completely insane.
Trump is as much symptom as cause: they were going this way anyway.
I think he started out as a symptom and has now graduated to being a cause. Are there examples of this in the domain of nasty diseases? If there are he's like that.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
I don't have a problem with Oxbridge, indeed I think it is a wonderful thing that we have two of the greatest and most historic universities in the world. I was simply pointing out that Labour is not asking questions about why these institutions are so massively wealthy and I have provided a possible answer. The fact that you think that using an example is silly is *very silly* of you!
Question: How can you tell when there is an Oxbridge graduate in a chatroom? Answer: You will know because they will have already told you!
Oxbridge are strange, in good and bad ways. The Govt does need policy around Oxbridge. But we were talking about university policy in general and whatever you do or don’t do with Oxbridge doesn’t answer the broader questions of undergraduate funding.
The question that should be asked IMO is why such institutions need to charge fees at all and why they need government funding. https://www.ft.com/content/f1126d04-c0fc-11df-99c4-00144feab49a (note this article refers to "Cambridge University". More interesting is to look at the wealth of colleges, eg. Trinity.
Colleges like Trinity also have centuries old, grade listed historic buildings to maintain which doesn't apply to newer universities
Might as well wait till 1500 for it from Ms Reeves, instead of made up stuff in Sky and DT whioch is driving our PB rightwingers mad. Mind, it sure works as clickbait.
I really do not accept your rejection of Sky's reporting nor that the doctors are considering putting it to their members
It seems an offer has been made and I am not sure even why you are so upset about it
Isn't it 20% over 2 years?
The Doctors have the whip hand in so much as pay them inadequately and they ****** off to Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
As I keep repeating, JD Vance 2014 was not a bad guy.
JD Vance on Justice Scalia in 2014. "He's become a very shrill old man. I used to really like him, and I used to believe all of his stuff about judicial minimalism was sincere. Now I see it as a political charade." https://x.com/JoshMBlackman/status/1817581641214398877
Trumpism has driven significant chunk of the Republican party completely insane.
Trump is as much symptom as cause: they were going this way anyway.
I think he started out as a symptom and has now graduated to being a cause. Are there examples of this in the domain of nasty diseases? If there are he's like that.
He cerainly seems to have graduated from chancre to full blown tertiary syphilis. Can Penicillin Kamala save the USA (and the rest of us)?
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
Simple, just have government set the maximum fees that can be charged by each university. So the lowest ranked universities are banned from charging as high fees as Oxbridge and Imperial and LSE can for instance unless in exceptional courses they can show have a well above average graduate earnings premium
Alternatively, get the government out of higher education completely, and let the college, the bank, and the student agree on a funding model. If the student ends up bankrupt after graduation, then the university and the bank have to sort things out between themselves.
Oxbridge colleges will then charge £30k per year, and the local polytechnic about £2.50.
The local polytechnics won't exist...
They’ll either go back to much more vocational courses, or work with businesses on degree apprenticeships.
Except vocational courses are expensive to run and degree apprenticeships are usually taught centrally online (which is way cheaper)...
Indeed. We need to be encouraging study in large groups mostly online, rather than saddling people with tens of thousands of pounds of debt for staying away from home studying a middling course for three years, which can never be paid back.
Might as well wait till 1500 for it from Ms Reeves, instead of made up stuff in Sky and DT whioch is driving our PB rightwingers mad. Mind, it sure works as clickbait.
I really do not accept your rejection of Sky's reporting nor that the doctors are considering putting it to their members
It seems an offer has been made and I am not sure even why you are so upset about it
Isn't it 20% over 2 years?
The Doctors have the whip hand in so much as pay them inadequately and they ****** off to Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Or become a drug rep. Or a locum.
No, the government doesn't have to pay doctors more.
Just recognise that doctors don't have to work for the NHS...
Democracy not doing great in Venezuela then. If a regime can't be voted out how are you meant to get rid of them other than via bloodshed?
The unpleasant truth is I can't see bloodshed being a viable option either.
For all the socialist facade the Chavistas are essentially a military junta, and so far the military show no signs of wavering in their support despite the absolute shitshow Maduro inherited and then worsened.
This is another reason why I wonder if Maduro might actually go for Guyana if he feels vulnerable (as the real results surely must make him feel).
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
I don't have a problem with Oxbridge, indeed I think it is a wonderful thing that we have two of the greatest and most historic universities in the world. I was simply pointing out that Labour is not asking questions about why these institutions are so massively wealthy and I have provided a possible answer. The fact that you think that using an example is silly is *very silly* of you!
Question: How can you tell when there is an Oxbridge graduate in a chatroom? Answer: You will know because they will have already told you!
Oxbridge are strange, in good and bad ways. The Govt does need policy around Oxbridge. But we were talking about university policy in general and whatever you do or don’t do with Oxbridge doesn’t answer the broader questions of undergraduate funding.
The question that should be asked IMO is why such institutions need to charge fees at all and why they need government funding. https://www.ft.com/content/f1126d04-c0fc-11df-99c4-00144feab49a (note this article refers to "Cambridge University". More interesting is to look at the wealth of colleges, eg. Trinity.
Colleges like Trinity also have centuries old, grade listed historic buildings to maintain which doesn't apply to newer universities
Whilst taxing investment and scrapping new hospital infrastructure?
Hmmm.
Also it shows the true scale of how austerity has impacted public sector wages....
Hopefully it will encourage a number of doctors back away from contract work and reduce agency costs (I suspect that's actually a significant factor in the offer)..
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
I don't have a problem with Oxbridge, indeed I think it is a wonderful thing that we have two of the greatest and most historic universities in the world. I was simply pointing out that Labour is not asking questions about why these institutions are so massively wealthy and I have provided a possible answer. The fact that you think that using an example is silly is *very silly* of you!
Question: How can you tell when there is an Oxbridge graduate in a chatroom? Answer: You will know because they will have already told you!
Oxbridge are strange, in good and bad ways. The Govt does need policy around Oxbridge. But we were talking about university policy in general and whatever you do or don’t do with Oxbridge doesn’t answer the broader questions of undergraduate funding.
The question that should be asked IMO is why such institutions need to charge fees at all and why they need government funding. https://www.ft.com/content/f1126d04-c0fc-11df-99c4-00144feab49a (note this article refers to "Cambridge University". More interesting is to look at the wealth of colleges, eg. Trinity.
Colleges like Trinity also have centuries old, grade listed historic buildings to maintain which doesn't apply to newer universities
Trinity Cambridge owns, amongst much else, the freehold to the UKs biggest container port. It’ll cope.
Rishi is certainly doing everything he can to get Tom Tug to win the members' vote, if we see Ted Heath voted we will know something is up...
Rishi Sunak started the fightback on the morning of July 5th with his apology outside No.10 Downing Street. I suspect we're going to hear a lot of apologising from the Conservatives in the coming months as they attempt to wipe the slate clean with the public.
I look forward to hearing a mea culpa from Kemi Badenoch (who sat round the same Cabinet table, collective responsibility) and perhaps Robert Jenrick - will I have a long wait?
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
I don't have a problem with Oxbridge, indeed I think it is a wonderful thing that we have two of the greatest and most historic universities in the world. I was simply pointing out that Labour is not asking questions about why these institutions are so massively wealthy and I have provided a possible answer. The fact that you think that using an example is silly is *very silly* of you!
Question: How can you tell when there is an Oxbridge graduate in a chatroom? Answer: You will know because they will have already told you!
Oxbridge are strange, in good and bad ways. The Govt does need policy around Oxbridge. But we were talking about university policy in general and whatever you do or don’t do with Oxbridge doesn’t answer the broader questions of undergraduate funding.
The question that should be asked IMO is why such institutions need to charge fees at all and why they need government funding. https://www.ft.com/content/f1126d04-c0fc-11df-99c4-00144feab49a (note this article refers to "Cambridge University". More interesting is to look at the wealth of colleges, eg. Trinity.
Colleges like Trinity also have centuries old, grade listed historic buildings to maintain which doesn't apply to newer universities
Trinity Cambridge owns, amongst much else, the freehold to the UKs biggest container port. It’ll cope.
Can you still walk from Oxford to Cambridge without stepping off land owned by one of the colleges?
A local farm I often cycle past is apparently owned by Univ. Why they have land up here I have no idea - presumably inherited.
Over effectively three years - some backdated for last year, some for this year, some the year after (4% extra over what was paid, 9%, 6%, I believe). doesn't look so generous.
The headline is misleading as people will assume it's 20% in one year.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
As I keep repeating, JD Vance 2014 was not a bad guy.
JD Vance on Justice Scalia in 2014. "He's become a very shrill old man. I used to really like him, and I used to believe all of his stuff about judicial minimalism was sincere. Now I see it as a political charade." https://x.com/JoshMBlackman/status/1817581641214398877
Given his subsequent history, isn't it likely that his adoption then of anti-Trump positions was just as self-serving as his adoption now of a pro-Trump position?
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
As I keep repeating, JD Vance 2014 was not a bad guy.
JD Vance on Justice Scalia in 2014. "He's become a very shrill old man. I used to really like him, and I used to believe all of his stuff about judicial minimalism was sincere. Now I see it as a political charade." https://x.com/JoshMBlackman/status/1817581641214398877
Trumpism has driven significant chunk of the Republican party completely insane.
Trump is as much symptom as cause: they were going this way anyway.
I think he started out as a symptom and has now graduated to being a cause. Are there examples of this in the domain of nasty diseases? If there are he's like that.
He cerainly seems to have graduated from chancre to full blown tertiary syphilis. Can Penicillin Kamala save the USA (and the rest of us)?
God I hope so. This is *such* a big election, isn't it. I can't recall any as important. It's just so stark and binary. We're either getting the first female president, a sane and competent woman, or we're getting Donald Trump back. I feel tense about it now, 3 months out, so christ knows how I'll be when it's upon us. It'd be good if she could pull out a nice stable lead in the polls. That might take the edge off slightly.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
University academics have seen a similar fall in relative pay to medics. We've been offered 2.5%...
If this is the offer the doctors will be expected to deliver on sorting backlogs etc (whether those are their fault or not).
We just recruited a post doc. I idly ran the BoE inflation calculator and found the starting salary was down about £3k (~8%) in real terms* on mine on the same grading structure as when I started at the same point about ten years ago.
The much derided increments enable the university sector (and other sectors where annual increments apply) to hide a lot of real terms pay cuts as many individuals in many years get real terms increases even as the scale itself drops in real terms.
*rather more than -8% compared to things like mortgage affordability for a similar house, presumably
Might as well wait till 1500 for it from Ms Reeves, instead of made up stuff in Sky and DT whioch is driving our PB rightwingers mad. Mind, it sure works as clickbait.
I really do not accept your rejection of Sky's reporting nor that the doctors are considering putting it to their members
It seems an offer has been made and I am not sure even why you are so upset about it
Not the offer - the way in which people here are so willing to accept speculation as fact.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
Is it not spelled Maudlin?
Are you Eton and Christ Church? No, I'm drunken and maudlin.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
Is it not spelled Maudlin?
Are you Eton and Christ Church? No, I'm drunken and maudlin.
Over effectively three years - some backdated for last year, some for this year, some the year after (4% extra over what was paid, 9%, 6%, I believe). doesn't look so generous.
The headline is misleading as people will assume it's 20% in one year.
Which is how it has been framed on here. It's at a cost of £1b, which seems like decent value to stop the NHS chaos.
Stephen Swinford is suggesting on BBC R4 it is marginally improved compared to what the Tories had on the table. On that basis Swinford is suggesting the Tories are crying foul that the strikes were politically motivated.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
I don't have a problem with Oxbridge, indeed I think it is a wonderful thing that we have two of the greatest and most historic universities in the world. I was simply pointing out that Labour is not asking questions about why these institutions are so massively wealthy and I have provided a possible answer. The fact that you think that using an example is silly is *very silly* of you!
Question: How can you tell when there is an Oxbridge graduate in a chatroom? Answer: You will know because they will have already told you!
Oxbridge are strange, in good and bad ways. The Govt does need policy around Oxbridge. But we were talking about university policy in general and whatever you do or don’t do with Oxbridge doesn’t answer the broader questions of undergraduate funding.
The question that should be asked IMO is why such institutions need to charge fees at all and why they need government funding. https://www.ft.com/content/f1126d04-c0fc-11df-99c4-00144feab49a (note this article refers to "Cambridge University". More interesting is to look at the wealth of colleges, eg. Trinity.
Colleges like Trinity also have centuries old, grade listed historic buildings to maintain which doesn't apply to newer universities
Trinity Cambridge owns, amongst much else, the freehold to the UKs biggest container port. It’ll cope.
Can you still walk from Oxford to Cambridge without stepping off land owned by one of the colleges?
A local farm I often cycle past is apparently owned by Univ. Why they have land up here I have no idea - presumably inherited.
Bequest
This is why Big Henry broke up the monasteries. If people leave everything to an institution it stays there.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
Well if you want to quibble, Trinity College Oxford has the highest percentage of ex private school students in Oxford at 52% followed by Christ Church, Queen's, Magdalen and Keble at 50%.
Robinson College Cambridge has the highest percentage of private school pupils in Cambridge at 50%, tied with St John's, followed by Gonville and Caius at 46% and Trinity at 44%.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
Is it not spelled Maudlin?
Are you Eton and Christ Church? No, I'm drunken and maudlin.
Not a New one.
Wadham I meant to do with the limited material at my disposal?
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
Well if you want to quibble, Trinity College Oxford has the highest percentage of ex private school students at 52% followed by Christ Church, Queen's, Magdalen, Christ Church and Keble at 50%.
Robinson College Cambridge has the highest percentage of private school pupils at 50%, tied with St John's, followed by Gonville and Caius at 46% and Trinity at 44%.
El régimen de Maduro debe entender que los resultados que publica son difíciles de creer. La comunidad internacional y sobre todo el pueblo venezolano, incluyendo a los millones de venezolanos en el exilio, exigimos total transparencia de las actas y el proceso, y que veedores internacionales no comprometidos con el gobierno den cuenta de la veracidad de los resultados.
Desde Chile no reconoceremos ningún resultado que no sea verificable.
(Google translated) The Maduro regime must understand that the results it publishes are difficult to believe. The international community and especially the Venezuelan people, including the millions of Venezuelans in exile, demand total transparency of the minutes and the process, and that international observers not committed to the government account for the veracity of the results.
Do diplomatic services not use the words 'sillier than Cummings' or 'utterly fucking impossible'?
“difficult to believe” in diplomacy is how you say “You are a lying liar who is lying. Your pants would be on fire - but you are an emperor with no clothes. By the way, you are lying.”
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
Is it not spelled Maudlin?
Are you Eton and Christ Church? No, I'm drunken and maudlin.
Not a New one.
Wadham I meant to do with the limited material at my disposal?
I'm struggling to reply to that one.
Its brilliance - I feel like I've been lifted bodley an dropped on the canvas.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
Well if you want to quibble, Trinity College Oxford has the highest percentage of ex private school students at 52% followed by Christ Church, Queen's, Magdalen, Christ Church and Keble at 50%.
Robinson College Cambridge has the highest percentage of private school pupils at 50%, tied with St John's, followed by Gonville and Caius at 46% and Trinity at 44%.
Over effectively three years - some backdated for last year, some for this year, some the year after (4% extra over what was paid, 9%, 6%, I believe). doesn't look so generous.
The headline is misleading as people will assume it's 20% in one year.
Which is how it has been framed on here. It's at a cost of £1b, which seems like decent value to stop the NHS chaos.
Stephen Swinford is suggesting on BBC R4 it is marginally improved compared to what the Tories had on the table. On that basis Swinford is suggesting the Tories are crying foul that the strikes were politically motivated.
Be interesting to see the details of previous offers. Worth noting though that although pay was the headline issue, there are plenty other issues. A degree of a conciliatory tone and jam tomorrow promises on that may have helped a similar headline pay deal to be more appealing.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
I don't have a problem with Oxbridge, indeed I think it is a wonderful thing that we have two of the greatest and most historic universities in the world. I was simply pointing out that Labour is not asking questions about why these institutions are so massively wealthy and I have provided a possible answer. The fact that you think that using an example is silly is *very silly* of you!
Question: How can you tell when there is an Oxbridge graduate in a chatroom? Answer: You will know because they will have already told you!
Oxbridge are strange, in good and bad ways. The Govt does need policy around Oxbridge. But we were talking about university policy in general and whatever you do or don’t do with Oxbridge doesn’t answer the broader questions of undergraduate funding.
The question that should be asked IMO is why such institutions need to charge fees at all and why they need government funding. https://www.ft.com/content/f1126d04-c0fc-11df-99c4-00144feab49a (note this article refers to "Cambridge University". More interesting is to look at the wealth of colleges, eg. Trinity.
Colleges like Trinity also have centuries old, grade listed historic buildings to maintain which doesn't apply to newer universities
Trinity Cambridge owns, amongst much else, the freehold to the UKs biggest container port. It’ll cope.
Can you still walk from Oxford to Cambridge without stepping off land owned by one of the colleges?
A local farm I often cycle past is apparently owned by Univ. Why they have land up here I have no idea - presumably inherited.
Bequest
This is why Big Henry broke up the monasteries. If people leave everything to an institution it stays there.
Presumably with a covenant so they can't sell it.
Bit daft really.
The local wildlife trust gets left land in a similar vein and then people get annoyed when they try and get rid of it.
Of course they have limited resources to do management work so unless it is an outstanding site it just becomes a liability. I don't imagine there is a lot of income from these random bits of land (unless someone builds a container port, obvs).
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
They would cut fees soon enough if it was that or not fill the places.
Rationing student loans for fees by performance with only people with 3 A's able to borrow the full amount and proportionate amount for lower grades down to £3,000 for 2 E's would concentrate their minds.
And force the lower grade ones to shut or return to focusing on vocational qualifications.
So you force the closure of the university which a pride and joy of the local area.
1) how do you deal with the economic fallout of doing so 2) how do you handle the local MPs who know they've just lost any chance of re-election...
A level grades are not necessarily a predictor of degree ones, nor of future earnings.
We admit ABB and above to Pharmacy. You would expect all the students to be hitting 2:1 and above, but quite a few fail. I think a lot of it is down to the removal of parental pressure ("Have you done your homework/revision?") and the discovery of boys/girls/alcohol etc.
Over effectively three years - some backdated for last year, some for this year, some the year after (4% extra over what was paid, 9%, 6%, I believe). doesn't look so generous.
The headline is misleading as people will assume it's 20% in one year.
Sky will be absolutely mortified if viewers are mislead.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
Well if you want to quibble, Trinity College Oxford has the highest percentage of ex private school students at 52% followed by Christ Church, Queen's, Magdalen, Christ Church and Keble at 50%.
Robinson College Cambridge has the highest percentage of private school pupils at 50%, tied with St John's, followed by Gonville and Caius at 46% and Trinity at 44%.
Might as well wait till 1500 for it from Ms Reeves, instead of made up stuff in Sky and DT whioch is driving our PB rightwingers mad. Mind, it sure works as clickbait.
BBC is saying 15:30. You'd think minor details like this would be easy to find out. Parliament TV site doesn't mention a time at all...
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
Well if you want to quibble, Trinity College Oxford has the highest percentage of ex private school students at 52% followed by Christ Church, Queen's, Magdalen, Christ Church and Keble at 50%.
Robinson College Cambridge has the highest percentage of private school pupils at 50%, tied with St John's, followed by Gonville and Caius at 46% and Trinity at 44%.
Merseyside Police statement “We can confirm that emergency services are in Southport following a major incident this morning, Monday 29 July.
“At around 11.50am, we were called to a property on Hart Street to reports of a stabbing. There are a number of reported casualties and more details will be confirmed when possible.
“Armed police have detained a male and seized a knife. He has been taken to a police station. Please avoid the area while we deal with this incident. There is no wider threat to the public.”
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
I don't have a problem with Oxbridge, indeed I think it is a wonderful thing that we have two of the greatest and most historic universities in the world. I was simply pointing out that Labour is not asking questions about why these institutions are so massively wealthy and I have provided a possible answer. The fact that you think that using an example is silly is *very silly* of you!
Question: How can you tell when there is an Oxbridge graduate in a chatroom? Answer: You will know because they will have already told you!
Oxbridge are strange, in good and bad ways. The Govt does need policy around Oxbridge. But we were talking about university policy in general and whatever you do or don’t do with Oxbridge doesn’t answer the broader questions of undergraduate funding.
The question that should be asked IMO is why such institutions need to charge fees at all and why they need government funding. https://www.ft.com/content/f1126d04-c0fc-11df-99c4-00144feab49a (note this article refers to "Cambridge University". More interesting is to look at the wealth of colleges, eg. Trinity.
Colleges like Trinity also have centuries old, grade listed historic buildings to maintain which doesn't apply to newer universities
Trinity Cambridge owns, amongst much else, the freehold to the UKs biggest container port. It’ll cope.
Can you still walk from Oxford to Cambridge without stepping off land owned by one of the colleges?
A local farm I often cycle past is apparently owned by Univ. Why they have land up here I have no idea - presumably inherited.
Bequest
This is why Big Henry broke up the monasteries. If people leave everything to an institution it stays there.
Presumably with a covenant so they can't sell it.
Bit daft really.
The local wildlife trust gets left land in a similar vein and then people get annoyed when they try and get rid of it.
Of course they have limited resources to do management work so unless it is an outstanding site it just becomes a liability. I don't imagine there is a lot of income from these random bits of land (unless someone builds a container port, obvs).
There are hotels and pubs owned by Oxbridge colleges, some of the land they own gets sold to developers too
Might as well wait till 1500 for it from Ms Reeves, instead of made up stuff in Sky and DT whioch is driving our PB rightwingers mad. Mind, it sure works as clickbait.
BBC is saying 15:30. You'd think minor details like this would be easy to find out. Parliament TV site doesn't mention a time at all...
I have a feeling I got mine from the BBC! Never mind, it'll happen sooner or rather later.
As I keep repeating, JD Vance 2014 was not a bad guy.
JD Vance on Justice Scalia in 2014. "He's become a very shrill old man. I used to really like him, and I used to believe all of his stuff about judicial minimalism was sincere. Now I see it as a political charade." https://x.com/JoshMBlackman/status/1817581641214398877
Trumpism has driven significant chunk of the Republican party completely insane.
Trump is as much symptom as cause: they were going this way anyway.
I think he started out as a symptom and has now graduated to being a cause. Are there examples of this in the domain of nasty diseases? If there are he's like that.
He cerainly seems to have graduated from chancre to full blown tertiary syphilis. Can Penicillin Kamala save the USA (and the rest of us)?
God I hope so. This is *such* a big election, isn't it. I can't recall any as important. It's just so stark and binary. We're either getting the first female president, a sane and competent woman, or we're getting Donald Trump back. I feel tense about it now, 3 months out, so christ knows how I'll be when it's upon us. It'd be good if she could pull out a nice stable lead in the polls. That might take the edge off slightly.
It’s has long been a semi-joking belief of mine that Trump carries a virus that turns intelligent people into dribbling morons.
Look at Giuliani….
Make sure you separate your hope casting for Harris from your betting. It’s still slightly in Trumps favour - 55% chance of him winning on the polls combined with the voting distribution, I think.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
Well if you want to quibble, Trinity College Oxford has the highest percentage of ex private school students at 52% followed by Christ Church, Queen's, Magdalen, Christ Church and Keble at 50%.
Robinson College Cambridge has the highest percentage of private school pupils at 50%, tied with St John's, followed by Gonville and Caius at 46% and Trinity at 44%.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
I don't have a problem with Oxbridge, indeed I think it is a wonderful thing that we have two of the greatest and most historic universities in the world. I was simply pointing out that Labour is not asking questions about why these institutions are so massively wealthy and I have provided a possible answer. The fact that you think that using an example is silly is *very silly* of you!
Question: How can you tell when there is an Oxbridge graduate in a chatroom? Answer: You will know because they will have already told you!
Oxbridge are strange, in good and bad ways. The Govt does need policy around Oxbridge. But we were talking about university policy in general and whatever you do or don’t do with Oxbridge doesn’t answer the broader questions of undergraduate funding.
The question that should be asked IMO is why such institutions need to charge fees at all and why they need government funding. https://www.ft.com/content/f1126d04-c0fc-11df-99c4-00144feab49a (note this article refers to "Cambridge University". More interesting is to look at the wealth of colleges, eg. Trinity.
Colleges like Trinity also have centuries old, grade listed historic buildings to maintain which doesn't apply to newer universities
Trinity Cambridge owns, amongst much else, the freehold to the UKs biggest container port. It’ll cope.
Can you still walk from Oxford to Cambridge without stepping off land owned by one of the colleges?
A local farm I often cycle past is apparently owned by Univ. Why they have land up here I have no idea - presumably inherited.
Bequest
This is why Big Henry broke up the monasteries. If people leave everything to an institution it stays there.
Presumably with a covenant so they can't sell it.
Bit daft really.
The local wildlife trust gets left land in a similar vein and then people get annoyed when they try and get rid of it.
Of course they have limited resources to do management work so unless it is an outstanding site it just becomes a liability. I don't imagine there is a lot of income from these random bits of land (unless someone builds a container port, obvs).
There are hotels and pubs owned by Oxbridge colleges, some of the land they own gets sold to developers too
But it won't necessarily have been donated and therefore come under the charity legislation. Some of the land they own will have been bought over the years. They're free to do as theu think with it, comparatively.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
Trinity and Magdalene colleges in Cambridge and Balliol and Christ Church and Magdalene colleges in Oxford are snobbier than your average private school, not least as plenty of their undergraduates still come from Eton, Westminster, Winchester and Harrow
Magdalen Oxford.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
Well if you want to quibble, Trinity College Oxford has the highest percentage of ex private school students at 52% followed by Christ Church, Queen's, Magdalen, Christ Church and Keble at 50%.
Robinson College Cambridge has the highest percentage of private school pupils at 50%, tied with St John's, followed by Gonville and Caius at 46% and Trinity at 44%.
They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour Party
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.
Orange Book LDs back tuition fees and ideally based on the graduate premium from and cost of the degree. Social Democrat LDs however largely want university education to be free
That's me told then; I've always been against tuition fees. Although I was a Liberal before I was a LibDem.
Tuition fees are arguably the greatest unforced error in the history of the universe.
Not a small claim when you consider that includes Operation Barabarossa, Alexander's trek through Gedrosia and the Emperor inviting the Rebellion to attack the second Death Star.
Not only did they nearly destroy the Lib Dems, they are actually a disaster in terms of funding HE.
They aren't, their problem is they are one size fits all not set at market rate.
If they were then economics at Cambridge or law at Oxford or medicine at Imperial for example would have the highest fees and arts degrees would be cheapest
You clearly don't have a clue how markets work (but then again nor did anyone else who implemented the scheme).
Because no university is going to charge less than the full rate because
1) it implies their course is less good than other courses 2) it leaves money they could otherwise get 3) the money is borrowed so it's never going to be fully repaid in many cases anyway...
See also: private school fees.
It's not just Stella Artois where expensive=reassurance.
The parallels between universities and private schools and universities are interesting. Note that Labour politicians seem less keen on taxing the bastions of privilege personified by the privately run, enormously wealthy, Oxbridge colleges that are massively more snobby than the snobbiest of private schools. The reason? Because so many of them went there themselves, including Starmer (albeit as a postgrad). Oxbridge has been very effective at being left alone by many Labour governments. If Rachel Reeves is serious about raising a bit of revenue and sharing out the privilege , then how about starting to ask why it is necessary for colleges to own huge land and business interests and maybe sharing it out amongst the cash strapped "lesser" universities (as the uber-snob HYUFD might describe them). No? Labour always looks after their own.
You appear to equate all universities with Oxbridge, which is very, very silly. There are 164 universities in the UK. Approximately 1% of students going to university go to Oxbridge.
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
I don't have a problem with Oxbridge, indeed I think it is a wonderful thing that we have two of the greatest and most historic universities in the world. I was simply pointing out that Labour is not asking questions about why these institutions are so massively wealthy and I have provided a possible answer. The fact that you think that using an example is silly is *very silly* of you!
Question: How can you tell when there is an Oxbridge graduate in a chatroom? Answer: You will know because they will have already told you!
Oxbridge are strange, in good and bad ways. The Govt does need policy around Oxbridge. But we were talking about university policy in general and whatever you do or don’t do with Oxbridge doesn’t answer the broader questions of undergraduate funding.
The question that should be asked IMO is why such institutions need to charge fees at all and why they need government funding. https://www.ft.com/content/f1126d04-c0fc-11df-99c4-00144feab49a (note this article refers to "Cambridge University". More interesting is to look at the wealth of colleges, eg. Trinity.
Colleges like Trinity also have centuries old, grade listed historic buildings to maintain which doesn't apply to newer universities
Trinity Cambridge owns, amongst much else, the freehold to the UKs biggest container port. It’ll cope.
Can you still walk from Oxford to Cambridge without stepping off land owned by one of the colleges?
A local farm I often cycle past is apparently owned by Univ. Why they have land up here I have no idea - presumably inherited.
Bequest
This is why Big Henry broke up the monasteries. If people leave everything to an institution it stays there.
Presumably with a covenant so they can't sell it.
Bit daft really.
The local wildlife trust gets left land in a similar vein and then people get annoyed when they try and get rid of it.
Of course they have limited resources to do management work so unless it is an outstanding site it just becomes a liability. I don't imagine there is a lot of income from these random bits of land (unless someone builds a container port, obvs).
It’s always possible to apply to a the Lands Tribunal to get a covenant varied or removed
UK productivity no longer matches the US Annualised growth in GDP per hour worked
Depressing that government has neglected the importance of manufacturing for at least the last decade.
It could have been very different.
Decade ?
Are you serious.
I have worked in manufacturing since 1982 and it has been neglected all of the time I have been working and, at least Osborne did recognise this with his Northern Powerhouse push and march of the makers which fell when he did.
It has tumbled as a percentage of GDP over that time even if output still rose.
Comments
Also, having been to Oxbridge, the snobbiest private schools are snobbier than Cambridge and some Oxford colleges, although, sure, some Oxford colleges can out-snob the snobbiest,
"This time, it may be a shorter period of membership (I clicked on the option to join for one year only rather than renewing automatically). But, for the moment, I am a Tory member again."
I strongly suspect he won't be a member this time next year, given his wing of the party's job is to lose leadership elections. But who knows - maybe enough will do likewise to make a difference.
Might as well wait till 1500 for it from Ms Reeves, instead of made up stuff in Sky and DT whioch is driving our PB rightwingers mad. Mind, it sure works as clickbait.
50% of that analysis was correct.
Unfortunately, the loon fluking a win means that the Republicans have drifted further and further from sanity.
If the conservative party puts Reform behind it and promotes integrity, sound money, and fairness then that will be a different matter
https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/jul/29/man-graduates-41-years-after-being-denied-ceremony-by-parrot-problem
El régimen de Maduro debe entender que los resultados que publica son difíciles de creer. La comunidad internacional y sobre todo el pueblo venezolano, incluyendo a los millones de venezolanos en el exilio, exigimos total transparencia de las actas y el proceso, y que veedores internacionales no comprometidos con el gobierno den cuenta de la veracidad de los resultados.
Desde Chile no reconoceremos ningún resultado que no sea verificable.
(Google translated)
The Maduro regime must understand that the results it publishes are difficult to believe. The international community and especially the Venezuelan people, including the millions of Venezuelans in exile, demand total transparency of the minutes and the process, and that international observers not committed to the government account for the veracity of the results.
From Chile we will not recognize any result that is not verifiable.
https://x.com/GabrielBoric/status/1817781484692123749
It seems an offer has been made and I am not sure even why you are so upset about it
Question: How can you tell when there is an Oxbridge graduate in a chatroom? Answer: You will know because they will have already told you!
In retrospect it may have been better if Obama had been a one term President
Do diplomatic services not use the words 'sillier than Cummings' or 'utterly fucking impossible'?
(Worth noting, by the way, that this increase covers two years.)
Keep clapping. Envy of the world.
https://www.nhsemployers.org/publications/nhs-pension-scheme-member-contributions-202425
The Doctors have the whip hand in so much as pay them inadequately and they ****** off to Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Lord Heseltine has Tory whip restored five years after backing Lib Dems over Brexit
https://x.com/cooke_millie/status/1817886686417723656
No, the government doesn't have to pay doctors more.
Just recognise that doctors don't have to work for the NHS...
For all the socialist facade the Chavistas are essentially a military junta, and so far the military show no signs of wavering in their support despite the absolute shitshow Maduro inherited and then worsened.
This is another reason why I wonder if Maduro might actually go for Guyana if he feels vulnerable (as the real results surely must make him feel).
If this is the offer the doctors will be expected to deliver on sorting backlogs etc (whether those are their fault or not).
When the BMA voted to stop “overproduction of doctors with limited career opportunities” surely that can't have helped?
Teaching might be different.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/29/britain-ceases-top-10-manufacturer-first-time-industrial/ (£££)
UK productivity no longer matches the US
Annualised growth in GDP per hour worked
I look forward to hearing a mea culpa from Kemi Badenoch (who sat round the same Cabinet table, collective responsibility) and perhaps Robert Jenrick - will I have a long wait?
A local farm I often cycle past is apparently owned by Univ. Why they have land up here I have no idea - presumably inherited.
The headline is misleading as people will assume it's 20% in one year.
When you spout this sort of undiluted bilge to people with first hand knowledge of the matter it puts more than a little doubt over your equally authoritative pronouncements about US politics. And everything else
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2114112/#Comment_2114112
The much derided increments enable the university sector (and other sectors where annual increments apply) to hide a lot of real terms pay cuts as many individuals in many years get real terms increases even as the scale itself drops in real terms.
*rather more than -8% compared to things like mortgage affordability for a similar house, presumably
2019-2023 ... but of course you and your chums have been blaming SKS and his Labour administration of the last 14 years for all that is going wrong.
Stephen Swinford is suggesting on BBC R4 it is marginally improved compared to what the Tories had on the table. On that basis Swinford is suggesting the Tories are crying foul that the strikes were politically motivated.
This is why Big Henry broke up the monasteries. If people leave everything to an institution it stays there.
Robinson College Cambridge has the highest percentage of private school pupils in Cambridge at 50%, tied with St John's, followed by Gonville and Caius at 46% and Trinity at 44%.
So I was not far off, albeit Balliol now has more state school pupils
https://thetab.com/uk/2019/10/04/the-oxbridge-colleges-admitting-the-most-private-school-kids-127451
Helpful hint: people come in round numbers.
Its brilliance - I feel like I've been lifted bodley an dropped on the canvas.
Bit daft really.
The local wildlife trust gets left land in a similar vein and then people get annoyed when they try and get rid of it.
Of course they have limited resources to do management work so unless it is an outstanding site it just becomes a liability. I don't imagine there is a lot of income from these random bits of land (unless someone builds a container port, obvs).
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/southport-major-incident-police-live-33349237
It could have been very different.
“We can confirm that emergency services are in Southport following a major incident this morning, Monday 29 July.
“At around 11.50am, we were called to a property on Hart Street to reports of a stabbing. There are a number of reported casualties and more details will be confirmed when possible.
“Armed police have detained a male and seized a knife. He has been taken to a police station. Please avoid the area while we deal with this incident. There is no wider threat to the public.”
Look at Giuliani….
Make sure you separate your hope casting for Harris from your betting. It’s still slightly in Trumps favour - 55% chance of him winning on the polls combined with the voting distribution, I think.
Pure comedy gold that.
Are you serious.
I have worked in manufacturing since 1982 and it has been neglected all of the time I have been working and, at least Osborne did recognise this with his Northern Powerhouse push and march of the makers which fell when he did.
It has tumbled as a percentage of GDP over that time even if output still rose.