Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Let’s talk about sextet – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,047
edited August 4 in General
imageLet’s talk about sextet – politicalbetting.com

Six candidates have made it onto the ballot to succeed Rishi Sunak as Tory leaderThey are: Kemi Badenoch, James Cleverly, Robert Jenrick, Priti Patel, Mel Stride and Tom Tugendhat https://t.co/Zoio6OgE8z

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,003
    I agree with TSE, I think Jenrick and Tugendhat are the likely final 2 Tory MPs will put to members of those nominated.

    Jenrick then likely narrowly beats Tugendhat with the membership but it would be close
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,084
    Mel Stride through but not on the header graph... checks Betfair... 30-ish... 3%-ish.
  • MisterBedfordshireMisterBedfordshire Posts: 2,252
    edited July 29
    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
  • What time is Rachel pulling a long face and saying the treasury coffers are fubarred?
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,277
    edited July 29
    HYUFD said:

    I agree with TSE, I think Jenrick and Tugendhat are the likely final 2 Tory MPs will put to members of those nominated.

    Jenrick then likely narrowly beats Tugendhat with the membership but it would be close

    Suspect you're correct on both predictions. I'd much prefer Stride, but of those two will unhesitatingly vote for Tugendhat.


    (But then I voted Hunt against Johnson and Sunak vs Truss. Had a winner with Cameron in 2005).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    I agree with TSE, I think Jenrick and Tugendhat are the likely final 2 Tory MPs will put to members of those nominated.

    Jenrick then likely narrowly beats Tugendhat with the membership but it would be close

    Suspect you're correct on both predictions. I'd much prefer Stride, but of those two will unhesitatingly vote for Tugendhat.
    Cambridge for the win!

    Tory landslide in 2029.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,097
    FPT

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    Britain ceases to be top 10 manufacturer for the first time on record
    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


    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.

    I'm in this game as well - want manufacturers broadly want (I think, let me know if you disagree) is

    ✅ Broad alignment with the EU
    ✅ BoE to be slightly more dovish than the Fed and ECB (Not happening I think)
    ✅ Simpler tax book.
    ✅ No budget wizard wheezes.
    I do not disagree at all. Regulatory alignment with the EU, certainly, especially in industries that are heavily regulated anyway, such as Pharmaceuticals and The automotive industry. It makes absolutely no sense to have duplicate standards that is just an extra cost burden. For example having RHD cars for the UK versus LHD cars for the UK makes for an additional cost burden. You duplicate tooling, part numbers, validation and other fixed costs. The cost of red tape is often spoken of as being a problem with the EU but if we still want to sell into these markets regulatory alignment with them makes perfect sense and that is part of ease of access to overseas markets. The Brexit deal has only had a minor impact on us so far however other overseas markets do not seem really to have opened up apart from part of the middle East. But the mood music from the last lot was not outward looking. We need to encourage exporting and also inward investment.

    Training and proper apprenticeships. Offer discounts on Engineering degrees. As Engineering has been less valued in this country fewer people have wanted to enter it and it is an ageing demographic. We need to inspire the next generation and for them to see it as interesting. One good thing that happens now is our business, along with others, takes graduates for 12 month placements. Works really well. Gives them real work experience, but also gets them embedded in manufacturing.

    Focussing on high value, high skills manufacturing.

    No budget shocks for certain and a far simpler tax book would be great and, as for the BOE, no shocks there either. A currency that is stable rather than up and down. It worries me when I see talk of Trump/Vance looking to use the USD as a weapon and devalue it to make their exports cheaper.
    I would also add a favourable planning regime and favourable, pro business, local govt. Too often I have heard local govt being hostile towards potential new businesses who will be the driver of jobs and wealth in the area.
    The last paragraph - chap I knew tried pitching a factory in what used to be the Red Wall. Got told to go away, pretty much. So it went to the Far East.
    This is also part of the issue with huge pressure to build houses on brownfield land. Every time an industrial site closes, it ends up as houses. Try getting a new site for heavy industrial through planning...!

    The net result is that people who might start industrial businesss don't, and people who might expand industrial businesses* don't, and the economy suffers accordingly. But don't worry, because we can all work as diversity officers from our spare bedrooms or something. Who needs to actually *make* stuff in this day and age.

    *I'm in exactly this position. I'm employing 5 people, and my industrial business is rapidly running out of room. I can't really take on more staff without more space, so I'd like to find a bigger site. I've been keeping half an eye on the commercial properties available in the area for the last year or so - nothing even halfway suitable has come up, never mind at a price I could afford. Why? Because every scrap of vacant brownfield round here instantly becomes houses.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,271
    Do we get to know which MPs nominated each candidate?
    Could be revealing.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,196
    FPT...

    Selebian said:

    Nunu5 said:

    Sky

    Government offers doctors 20% pay rise

    Idiots. There's your black hole.
    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
    I ran similar calcs a few months ago. PhD stipends are massively below where they were 20 year ago when i did mine in real terms. If i remember correctly what i got should now be £27k a year and my post-doc should be £50k+.

    When i talk to academics now they say most of their PhDs do second jobs to make the money required to live. When i did mine, i wasn't rolling in it, but i never thought about money. It was less than a real job, but not by much and student discounts, etc etc etc, meant only a real top job out of uni bettered it.
    Ditto.

    We've had a period of high inflation and the previous government put off a lot of difficult decisions and held numbers the same, be those undergraduate tuition fees or PhD stipends. This is not viable long term. I work (sometimes) in health AI. Good postdocs are hard to come by: they can go to industry and make much more.

    Not that a big pay rise for medical doctors are going to make us happy. :wink: We pay academics who are medical doctors much more than the computer scientists, when the latter are more in demand!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517

    Do we get to know which MPs nominated each candidate?
    Could be revealing.

    IIRC we can only go off their public declarations.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    Mechanic called police to children’s yoga and dance class

    Colin Parry, owner of Masters Vehicle Body Repairs on Hart Street, said he called police to an address in Hart Street behind which is The Hart Space studios.

    One of the events listed at The Hart Space at the time of the stabbings was a Taylor Swift-themed yoga and dance class for children in school years two to six, aged between six and 11.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/29/southport-major-incident-stabbing-police/
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,196

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Given you think everyone working in the NHS is indolent, I suppose I should be glad you only think 40% of the people in my sector are pointless.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,196

    Mechanic called police to children’s yoga and dance class

    Colin Parry, owner of Masters Vehicle Body Repairs on Hart Street, said he called police to an address in Hart Street behind which is The Hart Space studios.

    One of the events listed at The Hart Space at the time of the stabbings was a Taylor Swift-themed yoga and dance class for children in school years two to six, aged between six and 11.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/29/southport-major-incident-stabbing-police/

    Thank God we don't have guns or it would have been much worse.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,003
    edited July 29

    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    I agree with TSE, I think Jenrick and Tugendhat are the likely final 2 Tory MPs will put to members of those nominated.

    Jenrick then likely narrowly beats Tugendhat with the membership but it would be close

    Suspect you're correct on both predictions. I'd much prefer Stride, but of those two will unhesitatingly vote for Tugendhat.
    Cambridge for the win!

    Tory landslide in 2029.
    Indeed, though Tugendhat went to Bristol for undergrad. If the final 2 were Jenrick and Tugendhat I believe it would be only the 2nd time no Oxford graduate has been in the final 2 of a contested Conservative leadership contest, certainly since all Tory MPs got a vote and it was not just decided by Tory grandees. The other being 2001
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,271

    Do we get to know which MPs nominated each candidate?
    Could be revealing.

    IIRC we can only go off their public declarations.
    Thanks. Not very transparent, then.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,097
    .
    HYUFD said:

    I agree with TSE, I think Jenrick and Tugendhat are the likely final 2 Tory MPs will put to members of those nominated.

    Jenrick then likely narrowly beats Tugendhat with the membership but it would be close

    They'll only do that if they are insane. Obviously the most right-wing choice wins with the membership, so if they've any sense at-all, they'll move heaven and earth to keep that slimeball Jenrick off the ballot.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,533

    What time is Rachel pulling a long face and saying the treasury coffers are fubarred?

    BBC say 15:30.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Given you think everyone working in the NHS is indolent, I suppose I should be glad you only think 40% of the people in my sector are pointless.
    Nonsense. The indolence comment was a brief summing up of the contents of that Telegraph article.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517
    JohnO said:

    HYUFD said:

    I agree with TSE, I think Jenrick and Tugendhat are the likely final 2 Tory MPs will put to members of those nominated.

    Jenrick then likely narrowly beats Tugendhat with the membership but it would be close

    Suspect you're correct on both predictions. I'd much prefer Stride, but of those two will unhesitatingly vote for Tugendhat.


    (But then I voted Hunt against Johnson and Sunak vs Truss. Had a winner with Cameron in 2005).
    Dave (pbuh) is the only winner I've backed in four attempts.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,969
    #TeamKemi for me!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517
    GIN1138 said:

    #TeamKemi for me!

    Sad.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,969
    edited July 29
    But I would probably have been #Penny4Leader had she not been booted out of Westminster on 4th July :(
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    edited July 29
    Axing infrastructure projects to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build our way to growth. Of all public spending, infrastructure is something that politically is easy and as long as it isn't a total white elephant should bring returns e.g. we need new hospitals. HS2 is even more absolutely and utterly pointless if everybody has to get off and change 15 minutes outside the centre of London.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,314

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Jordan Peterson is trying to launch just such a cheap and accessible online university at the moment. He has a whole load of world-leading academics delivering lectures on a wide variety of subjects.

    https://petersonacademy.com/enroll $450 per year if you enroll now.

    The sticking point, as always, is the awarding (or otherwise) of a degree at the end of the course. It’s a very big if, but if he can find a way to award accredited degrees it has the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,380

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    On nursing, there are a number of studies showing reduced mortality and other adverse outcomes correlating with increased numbers of degree-level nurses.

    Nursing and midwifery and the only undergrad degrees in my (Russell Group uni) department, FWIW. I rarely do undergrad teaching and am not paid for it, so I don't have any particular vested interest - our entire undergrad programme could close and it would not impact my job - but I do think there is value there. It's worth noting that most of it is practical and very similar to what would be done in a non-degree nursing course, but with some added understanding of research processes, uncertainties, ethics etc and teachers who are generally research active and perhaps a bit ore cutting edge in the field than might otherwise be the case.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,757
    The only entity to emerge from today's fiscal 'event' with its credibility enhanced, is, thus far, the IFS.

    The director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), a leading think thank, told the BBC on Friday he doesn’t think Labour’s claim of a previously unknown shortfall in the country’s finances is “credible”.
    “I don’t think it’s really very credible at all," Johnson said, adding that the scale of the problems within the public sector was widely known and that the choice "as ever" is about how well the government of the day wants it to perform.
    Labour seems confident its audit, which the new chancellor will detail this afternoon, will prove to the IFS and others that the numbers are different from what was previously publicly known.
    But already back in March, the IFS had accused both Labour and the Tories of a "conspiracy of silence" over the scale of spending cuts or tax rises needed in the next parliamentary term.
    Johnson had at the time said whoever won government knew they would face "eye-wateringly tough choices" on public service spending...
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,969

    Axing road and rail project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build to growth.

    Indeed. Everyone wants growth but how you achieve it and the choices you make to get it are always the problem...

    We'll just have to hope the doctors spend their 20% pay rise in the wider economy :D
  • DumbosaurusDumbosaurus Posts: 659

    Mel Stride through but not on the header graph... checks Betfair... 30-ish... 3%-ish.

    Great value imo. I'm on small at an average price of 40. I also think Cleverly is value at current price of 7.6 (I have 7.2).

    You're probably all right that Kemi won't win and I don't have any money on her. But I want her to. And I want that bastard Jenrick to lose.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,314
    Selebian said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    On nursing, there are a number of studies showing reduced mortality and other adverse outcomes correlating with increased numbers of degree-level nurses.

    Nursing and midwifery and the only undergrad degrees in my (Russell Group uni) department, FWIW. I rarely do undergrad teaching and am not paid for it, so I don't have any particular vested interest - our entire undergrad programme could close and it would not impact my job - but I do think there is value there. It's worth noting that most of it is practical and very similar to what would be done in a non-degree nursing course, but with some added understanding of research processes, uncertainties, ethics etc and teachers who are generally research active and perhaps a bit ore cutting edge in the field than might otherwise be the case.
    The wider issue is the £30-50k debt for the course, for someone who will go on to earn a nurse’s salary, as opposed to the previous scheme which didn’t leave nurses in massive debt at the start of their careers.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,271
    None of my business, but if the Tories want a fresh, clean, scandal-free start isn't Jenrick completely the wrong choice? Labour would make much of various dodgy dealings, in particular the shenanigans with Richard Desmond over the Westferry housing development.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,097

    Axing infrastructure project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build our way to growth. Of all public spending, infrastructure is something that politically is easy and as long as it isn't a total white elephant should bring returns e.g. we need new hospitals.

    Does depend on what the infrastructure is. Digging a very expensive tunnel under Stonehenge as opposed to either banging an extra lane in either side of the A303 or diverting a conventional dual carriageway A303 round the area is pretty much the definition of wasting money without any prospect of a financial return (except to English Heritage).

    I suspect that if you stacked up the paperwork already done on this one it probably be sufficient to make a full size replica of the Henge stones...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    GIN1138 said:

    Axing road and rail project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build to growth.

    Indeed. Everyone wants growth but how you achieve it and the choices you make to get it are always the problem...

    We'll just have to hope the doctors spend their 20% pay rise in the wider economy :D
    Its not exactly great look on what Bad Al used to call the Media Matrix, to have 20% pay rise vs no money must cut all this spending on infrastructure. Need to space it out to different weeks.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,969
    edited July 29
    Surely Tugenhat has ruled himself out with all that nonsense at the weekend? No, not the TURD fiasco, but saying he's willing to quit ECHR?

    Everyone knows he would never quit ECHR and it's that kind of over-expecting/under-delivering nonsense that has helped get the Tories where they are.

    Clearly he's learned absolutely nothing.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    edited July 29
    theProle said:

    Axing infrastructure project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build our way to growth. Of all public spending, infrastructure is something that politically is easy and as long as it isn't a total white elephant should bring returns e.g. we need new hospitals.

    Does depend on what the infrastructure is. Digging a very expensive tunnel under Stonehenge as opposed to either banging an extra lane in either side of the A303 or diverting a conventional dual carriageway A303 round the area is pretty much the definition of wasting money without any prospect of a financial return (except to English Heritage).

    I suspect that if you stacked up the paperwork already done on this one it probably be sufficient to make a full size replica of the Henge stones...
    If I was Rachael Reeves I would divert the money to other infrastructure projects that would get more bang the buck. Properly levelling up the north, not buying stone chessboards. But it seems she is going to announce cut to rail and hospital building as well.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,358
    My hunch is the final two will be Badenoch and Cleverly.

    Interesting how 3 of the candidates represent adjacent constituencies in north Essex.
  • DumbosaurusDumbosaurus Posts: 659

    None of my business, but if the Tories want a fresh, clean, scandal-free start isn't Jenrick completely the wrong choice? Labour would make much of various dodgy dealings, in particular the shenanigans with Richard Desmond over the Westferry housing development.

    He's a horrendous choice in every respect. Sole initiative other than dodgy property dealings has been spending money on paint purely to make vulnerable children miserable ffs. No humanity.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,969

    GIN1138 said:

    Axing road and rail project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build to growth.

    Indeed. Everyone wants growth but how you achieve it and the choices you make to get it are always the problem...

    We'll just have to hope the doctors spend their 20% pay rise in the wider economy :D
    Its not exactly great look on what Bad Al used to call the Media Matrix, to have 20% pay rise vs no money must cut all this spending on infrastructure. Need to space it out to different weeks.
    It's the nurses I feel sorry for. They only got 5%.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,462
    edited July 29
    theProle said:

    Axing infrastructure project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build our way to growth. Of all public spending, infrastructure is something that politically is easy and as long as it isn't a total white elephant should bring returns e.g. we need new hospitals.

    Does depend on what the infrastructure is. Digging a very expensive tunnel under Stonehenge as opposed to either banging an extra lane in either side of the A303 or diverting a conventional dual carriageway A303 round the area is pretty much the definition of wasting money without any prospect of a financial return (except to English Heritage).

    I suspect that if you stacked up the paperwork already done on this one it probably be sufficient to make a full size replica of the Henge stones...
    This government is clueless about infrastructure; just as the last one was. Perhaps even worse.

    I'm perhaps being unfair. Let's await to hear the details, but the foreshadowing is not positive.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,003
    edited July 29
    theProle said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    I agree with TSE, I think Jenrick and Tugendhat are the likely final 2 Tory MPs will put to members of those nominated.

    Jenrick then likely narrowly beats Tugendhat with the membership but it would be close

    They'll only do that if they are insane. Obviously the most right-wing choice wins with the membership, so if they've any sense at-all, they'll move heaven and earth to keep that slimeball Jenrick off the ballot.
    On the polling TSE showed this morning Jenrick has the second best net approval rating with the public after Tugendhat of the 6 candidates nominated, so Tory MPs would have made the right decision. The rightwing candidate doesn't always win the membership either, after all Davis lost to Cameron in 2005

    https://x.com/keiranpedley/status/1816040577453973865
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,533
    I really wish the telly news would keep peoples names on screen (or at least flash them up from time to time). Watching the beeb live feed while we wait on todays statement and it's just some bloke and some woman saying things. No idea who they are.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,358
    Reeves speaking.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,314
    HYUFD said:

    theProle said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    I agree with TSE, I think Jenrick and Tugendhat are the likely final 2 Tory MPs will put to members of those nominated.

    Jenrick then likely narrowly beats Tugendhat with the membership but it would be close

    They'll only do that if they are insane. Obviously the most right-wing choice wins with the membership, so if they've any sense at-all, they'll move heaven and earth to keep that slimeball Jenrick off the ballot.
    On the polling TSE showed this morning Jenrick has the second best net approval rating with the public after Tugendhat of the 6 candidates nominated, so Tory MPs would have made the right decision

    https://x.com/keiranpedley/status/1816040577453973865
    Almost no-one has heard of Robert Jenrick, that’s why.

    Not many more have heard of Tom Tugendhat.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,462

    theProle said:

    Axing infrastructure project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build our way to growth. Of all public spending, infrastructure is something that politically is easy and as long as it isn't a total white elephant should bring returns e.g. we need new hospitals.

    Does depend on what the infrastructure is. Digging a very expensive tunnel under Stonehenge as opposed to either banging an extra lane in either side of the A303 or diverting a conventional dual carriageway A303 round the area is pretty much the definition of wasting money without any prospect of a financial return (except to English Heritage).

    I suspect that if you stacked up the paperwork already done on this one it probably be sufficient to make a full size replica of the Henge stones...
    If I was Rachael Reeves I would divert the money to other infrastructure projects that would get more bang the buck. Properly levelling up the north, not buying stone chessboards. But it seems she is going to announce cut to rail and hospital building as well.
    I'd like to know how the people who live in all the lovely new houses they plan to build go anywhere... ;)
  • Nunu5Nunu5 Posts: 954
    Andy_JS said:

    Reeves speaking.

    'taxes up up up, especially for savers"
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,196
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Jordan Peterson is trying to launch just such a cheap and accessible online university at the moment. He has a whole load of world-leading academics delivering lectures on a wide variety of subjects.

    https://petersonacademy.com/enroll $450 per year if you enroll now.

    The sticking point, as always, is the awarding (or otherwise) of a degree at the end of the course. It’s a very big if, but if he can find a way to award accredited degrees it has the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down.
    Surely the sticking point is Jordan Peterson being involved!

    Also, none of this is new. Lots of places have MOOCs (massive open online courses) now. Standford, for example, has a great set that you can sign up for free, but you pay for the certification. When MOOCs were first a big, new thing a few years back, everyone said they had the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down. The challenge is that it's harder to learn that way than if you are immersed in the university environment with fellow students and access to staff. (COVID-19 kind of proved this when everyone had to go online.)

    But for some people, MOOCs are great. If you can make yourself work through them, they are huge boon.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,084
    Nigelb said:

    The only entity to emerge from today's fiscal 'event' with its credibility enhanced, is, thus far, the IFS.

    The director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), a leading think thank, told the BBC on Friday he doesn’t think Labour’s claim of a previously unknown shortfall in the country’s finances is “credible”.
    “I don’t think it’s really very credible at all," Johnson said, adding that the scale of the problems within the public sector was widely known and that the choice "as ever" is about how well the government of the day wants it to perform.
    Labour seems confident its audit, which the new chancellor will detail this afternoon, will prove to the IFS and others that the numbers are different from what was previously publicly known.
    But already back in March, the IFS had accused both Labour and the Tories of a "conspiracy of silence" over the scale of spending cuts or tax rises needed in the next parliamentary term.
    Johnson had at the time said whoever won government knew they would face "eye-wateringly tough choices" on public service spending...

    Did he not also say the £20 billion black hole looked suspiciously like Jeremy Hunt's unfunded NI cuts?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,757
    But not covered up by the IFS or anyone else actually looking at it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,455

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Given you think everyone working in the NHS is indolent, I suppose I should be glad you only think 40% of the people in my sector are pointless.
    Also the statement that arts/hums students get 30 mins lectures a month, and don't do anything else but look into a library, is a teensy bit out of date.
  • GIN1138 said:

    Axing road and rail project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build to growth.

    Indeed. Everyone wants growth but how you achieve it and the choices you make to get it are always the problem...

    We'll just have to hope the doctors spend their 20% pay rise in the wider economy :D
    Which alone will increase their index linked pensions by more than a private sector will get as a pension for a lifetimes work
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,455
    HYUFD said:

    theProle said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    I agree with TSE, I think Jenrick and Tugendhat are the likely final 2 Tory MPs will put to members of those nominated.

    Jenrick then likely narrowly beats Tugendhat with the membership but it would be close

    They'll only do that if they are insane. Obviously the most right-wing choice wins with the membership, so if they've any sense at-all, they'll move heaven and earth to keep that slimeball Jenrick off the ballot.
    On the polling TSE showed this morning Jenrick has the second best net approval rating with the public after Tugendhat of the 6 candidates nominated, so Tory MPs would have made the right decision. The rightwing candidate doesn't always win the membership either, after all Davis lost to Cameron in 2005

    https://x.com/keiranpedley/status/1816040577453973865
    But there's been some whitewashing* going on ... or maybe not.

    *Of the mural genus.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627

    theProle said:

    Axing infrastructure project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build our way to growth. Of all public spending, infrastructure is something that politically is easy and as long as it isn't a total white elephant should bring returns e.g. we need new hospitals.

    Does depend on what the infrastructure is. Digging a very expensive tunnel under Stonehenge as opposed to either banging an extra lane in either side of the A303 or diverting a conventional dual carriageway A303 round the area is pretty much the definition of wasting money without any prospect of a financial return (except to English Heritage).

    I suspect that if you stacked up the paperwork already done on this one it probably be sufficient to make a full size replica of the Henge stones...
    This government is clueless about infrastructure; just as the last one was. Perhaps even worse.

    I'm perhaps being unfair. Let's await to hear the details, but the foreshadowing is not positive.
    In education, I came to the conclusion, about five years ago, that it wasn't whatever third-rate buffoon was minister but the actual system itself that was the problem.

    Infrastructure looks no different.

    And both arguably lead back to dodgy assumptions at the Treasury.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,440
    Andy_JS said:

    Reeves speaking.

    Are things worse than anyone could have possibly predicted ? :D:D:D:D
  • GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Axing road and rail project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build to growth.

    Indeed. Everyone wants growth but how you achieve it and the choices you make to get it are always the problem...

    We'll just have to hope the doctors spend their 20% pay rise in the wider economy :D
    Its not exactly great look on what Bad Al used to call the Media Matrix, to have 20% pay rise vs no money must cut all this spending on infrastructure. Need to space it out to different weeks.
    It's the nurses I feel sorry for. They only got 5%.
    Only 5%.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,627
    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Given you think everyone working in the NHS is indolent, I suppose I should be glad you only think 40% of the people in my sector are pointless.
    Also the statement that arts/hums students get 30 mins lectures a month, and don't do anything else but look into a library, is a teensy bit out of date.
    Indeed.

    As if they use libraries now we have proper e-books.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,605
    The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,271
    edited July 29

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Jordan Peterson is trying to launch just such a cheap and accessible online university at the moment. He has a whole load of world-leading academics delivering lectures on a wide variety of subjects.

    https://petersonacademy.com/enroll $450 per year if you enroll now.

    The sticking point, as always, is the awarding (or otherwise) of a degree at the end of the course. It’s a very big if, but if he can find a way to award accredited degrees it has the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down.
    Surely the sticking point is Jordan Peterson being involved!

    Also, none of this is new. Lots of places have MOOCs (massive open online courses) now. Standford, for example, has a great set that you can sign up for free, but you pay for the certification. When MOOCs were first a big, new thing a few years back, everyone said they had the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down. The challenge is that it's harder to learn that way than if you are immersed in the university environment with fellow students and access to staff. (COVID-19 kind of proved this when everyone had to go online.)

    But for some people, MOOCs are great. If you can make yourself work through them, they are huge boon.
    Agree. My experience was that MOOCs can work pretty well with highly motivated mature adults, but are pretty hopeless for most 18-19 year-old undergraduates.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,455
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Given you think everyone working in the NHS is indolent, I suppose I should be glad you only think 40% of the people in my sector are pointless.
    Also the statement that arts/hums students get 30 mins lectures a month, and don't do anything else but look into a library, is a teensy bit out of date.
    Indeed.

    As if they use libraries now we have proper e-books.
    Where do you think they get access to the e-books and journals? Through the uni library, and much more efficiently than in the old days.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,274
    FPT

    Burgessian mentioned the President of Cuba praising his fellow Putinist-dictator Maduro for fighting and (allegedly) defeating what he (the Pres not Burg) called the "Monroeist regional right".

    Which I'm 99.48% sure was referring to the USA via the Monroe Doctrine, which for many Latin Americans (NOT all leftists let alone old-school or neo-Communists) is basis, justification and window dressing for American imperialism in the Western hemisphere from Point Barrow to Tierra del Fuego.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,533
    HYUFD said:

    theProle said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    I agree with TSE, I think Jenrick and Tugendhat are the likely final 2 Tory MPs will put to members of those nominated.

    Jenrick then likely narrowly beats Tugendhat with the membership but it would be close

    They'll only do that if they are insane. Obviously the most right-wing choice wins with the membership, so if they've any sense at-all, they'll move heaven and earth to keep that slimeball Jenrick off the ballot.
    On the polling TSE showed this morning Jenrick has the second best net approval rating with the public after Tugendhat of the 6 candidates nominated, so Tory MPs would have made the right decision. The rightwing candidate doesn't always win the membership either, after all Davis lost to Cameron in 2005

    https://x.com/keiranpedley/status/1816040577453973865
    I feel the membership in 2005 (when I voted for Cameron) is rather different in complexion from 2024.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517

    The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.

    The joys of using the exhaustive ballot system which is a form of quasi-AV.

    None of this first past the post crap.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,314

    The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.

    The joys of using the exhaustive ballot system which is a form of quasi-AV.

    None of this first past the post crap.
    Oh God, not this again.

    An exhaustive series of ballots is nothing at all like AV.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,481

    The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.

    That work so well with Liz Truss though - second to Rishi on MP votes but won by miles because she offered everything Tory members wanted not understanding that it wasn’t affordable
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,969
    edited July 29

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Axing road and rail project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build to growth.

    Indeed. Everyone wants growth but how you achieve it and the choices you make to get it are always the problem...

    We'll just have to hope the doctors spend their 20% pay rise in the wider economy :D
    Its not exactly great look on what Bad Al used to call the Media Matrix, to have 20% pay rise vs no money must cut all this spending on infrastructure. Need to space it out to different weeks.
    It's the nurses I feel sorry for. They only got 5%.
    Only 5%.
    I mean 5% pay rise is nice but it's nothing compared to 20% for doctors, and nurses work just as hard if not harder than doctors (it's the nurses who have to do all the shitty jobs like dealing with bedpans etc)

    If I was leading the nursing unions I'd be putting in for 20% when their next pay around comes up.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,380
    edited July 29
    Sandpit said:

    Selebian said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    On nursing, there are a number of studies showing reduced mortality and other adverse outcomes correlating with increased numbers of degree-level nurses.

    Nursing and midwifery and the only undergrad degrees in my (Russell Group uni) department, FWIW. I rarely do undergrad teaching and am not paid for it, so I don't have any particular vested interest - our entire undergrad programme could close and it would not impact my job - but I do think there is value there. It's worth noting that most of it is practical and very similar to what would be done in a non-degree nursing course, but with some added understanding of research processes, uncertainties, ethics etc and teachers who are generally research active and perhaps a bit ore cutting edge in the field than might otherwise be the case.
    The wider issue is the £30-50k debt for the course, for someone who will go on to earn a nurse’s salary, as opposed to the previous scheme which didn’t leave nurses in massive debt at the start of their careers.
    Sure, but you can apply that to many, many courses.

    "Various job boards and recruitment sites that track the salaries of jobs they post suggest the average wage of a UK nurse is somewhere around the £35,000 to £38,000 a year mark." - Nurses.co.uk

    'Average' (mean?) annual salary of graduates in England £38.5k - Statista

    So, you might say, reduce numbers of people going to university, but for many of those jobs training is needed, so you wither import graduates from overseas, provide similar level course not called degrees (why/how are those cheaper?) or expect employers to train in-house (also fine, but must feed through either into reduced salaries or higher prices/costs).

    For nurses, you could have NHS training centres with - presumably - similar costs, I guess.

  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,533

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Jordan Peterson is trying to launch just such a cheap and accessible online university at the moment. He has a whole load of world-leading academics delivering lectures on a wide variety of subjects.

    https://petersonacademy.com/enroll $450 per year if you enroll now.

    The sticking point, as always, is the awarding (or otherwise) of a degree at the end of the course. It’s a very big if, but if he can find a way to award accredited degrees it has the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down.
    Surely the sticking point is Jordan Peterson being involved!

    Also, none of this is new. Lots of places have MOOCs (massive open online courses) now. Standford, for example, has a great set that you can sign up for free, but you pay for the certification. When MOOCs were first a big, new thing a few years back, everyone said they had the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down. The challenge is that it's harder to learn that way than if you are immersed in the university environment with fellow students and access to staff. (COVID-19 kind of proved this when everyone had to go online.)

    But for some people, MOOCs are great. If you can make yourself work through them, they are huge boon.
    I've been making my way through a lot of Andrew Ng's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Ng) new(ish) platform at :

    https://www.deeplearning.ai/courses/

    It's also really quite impressive (to me, old-ish bloke) how many world-class researchers and teachers there are putting out amazing content on youtube for free. Not going to get you a bit of paper and a gold star at the end of it of course.

    I do wonder about the fees the OU is charging though for largely remote self-learning.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,022
    9 billion wage increases coming from savings in departments
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    ohnotnow said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Jordan Peterson is trying to launch just such a cheap and accessible online university at the moment. He has a whole load of world-leading academics delivering lectures on a wide variety of subjects.

    https://petersonacademy.com/enroll $450 per year if you enroll now.

    The sticking point, as always, is the awarding (or otherwise) of a degree at the end of the course. It’s a very big if, but if he can find a way to award accredited degrees it has the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down.
    Surely the sticking point is Jordan Peterson being involved!

    Also, none of this is new. Lots of places have MOOCs (massive open online courses) now. Standford, for example, has a great set that you can sign up for free, but you pay for the certification. When MOOCs were first a big, new thing a few years back, everyone said they had the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down. The challenge is that it's harder to learn that way than if you are immersed in the university environment with fellow students and access to staff. (COVID-19 kind of proved this when everyone had to go online.)

    But for some people, MOOCs are great. If you can make yourself work through them, they are huge boon.
    I've been making my way through a lot of Andrew Ng's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Ng) new(ish) platform at :

    https://www.deeplearning.ai/courses/

    It's also really quite impressive (to me, old-ish bloke) how many world-class researchers and teachers there are putting out amazing content on youtube for free. Not going to get you a bit of paper and a gold star at the end of it of course.

    I do wonder about the fees the OU is charging though for largely remote self-learning.
    Karpathy has put out some excellent stuff.
  • GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Axing road and rail project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build to growth.

    Indeed. Everyone wants growth but how you achieve it and the choices you make to get it are always the problem...

    We'll just have to hope the doctors spend their 20% pay rise in the wider economy :D
    Its not exactly great look on what Bad Al used to call the Media Matrix, to have 20% pay rise vs no money must cut all this spending on infrastructure. Need to space it out to different weeks.
    It's the nurses I feel sorry for. They only got 5%.
    Only 5%.
    I mean 5% pay rise is nice but it's nothing compared to 20% for doctors, and nurses work just as hard if not harder than doctors (it's the nurses who have to do all the shitty jobs like dealing with bedpans etc)

    If I was leading the nursing unions I'd be putting in for 20% when their next pay around comes up.
    This government is going to get trussified very fast isn't it.

    Back to Dennis Healy and the IMF in short order.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,349
    Reeves is good. Authoritive.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517
    Sandpit said:

    The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.

    The joys of using the exhaustive ballot system which is a form of quasi-AV.

    None of this first past the post crap.
    Oh God, not this again.

    An exhaustive series of ballots is nothing at all like AV.
    Multiple rounds of voting where the lowest ranked candidate is eliminated and we have a winner when somebody gets over 50%.

    How is that not like AV?
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,202
    edited July 29
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Given you think everyone working in the NHS is indolent, I suppose I should be glad you only think 40% of the people in my sector are pointless.
    Also the statement that arts/hums students get 30 mins lectures a month, and don't do anything else but look into a library, is a teensy bit out of date.
    Indeed.

    As if they use libraries now we have proper e-books.
    Where do you think they get access to the e-books and journals? Through the uni library, and much more efficiently than in the old days.
    A privilege for which the (private sector owned) journals charge an absolute fortune.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Jordan Peterson is trying to launch just such a cheap and accessible online university at the moment. He has a whole load of world-leading academics delivering lectures on a wide variety of subjects.

    https://petersonacademy.com/enroll $450 per year if you enroll now.

    The sticking point, as always, is the awarding (or otherwise) of a degree at the end of the course. It’s a very big if, but if he can find a way to award accredited degrees it has the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down.
    Surely the sticking point is Jordan Peterson being involved!

    Who doesn’t want an education from an insane, far right, climate change denying benzo addict?
  • 9 billion wage increases coming from savings in departments

    Which wont materialise of course - they never do
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,358

    The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.

    You mean someone will just decide to drop out?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,380

    9 billion wage increases coming from savings in departments

    9 billion wage increases? That's a wage increase for everyone on the planet! :wink: (And also for a billion-plus others - rescue dogs? AIs? aliens?)
  • ManOfGwentManOfGwent Posts: 52

    Sandpit said:

    The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.

    The joys of using the exhaustive ballot system which is a form of quasi-AV.

    None of this first past the post crap.
    Oh God, not this again.

    An exhaustive series of ballots is nothing at all like AV.
    Multiple rounds of voting where the lowest ranked candidate is eliminated and we have a winner when somebody gets over 50%.

    How is that not like AV?
    Get to change your mind after each round. Can't change your order with AV.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 121,003
    mwadams said:

    HYUFD said:

    theProle said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    I agree with TSE, I think Jenrick and Tugendhat are the likely final 2 Tory MPs will put to members of those nominated.

    Jenrick then likely narrowly beats Tugendhat with the membership but it would be close

    They'll only do that if they are insane. Obviously the most right-wing choice wins with the membership, so if they've any sense at-all, they'll move heaven and earth to keep that slimeball Jenrick off the ballot.
    On the polling TSE showed this morning Jenrick has the second best net approval rating with the public after Tugendhat of the 6 candidates nominated, so Tory MPs would have made the right decision. The rightwing candidate doesn't always win the membership either, after all Davis lost to Cameron in 2005

    https://x.com/keiranpedley/status/1816040577453973865
    I feel the membership in 2005 (when I voted for Cameron) is rather different in complexion from 2024.
    Not so different, certainly if our Association is anything to go by many of the most rightwing in it left for Reform or lapsed their membership after Boris was removed and Sunak replaced Truss as leader
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,757
    At this rate the labour government is doing the equivalent of f*** all. What a joke.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,349

    9 billion wage increases coming from savings in departments

    3 billion from savings
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    In addition to this, we would like to acknowledge and credit a former Southport RFC player, Joel as a hero who played his part in stopping the attacker on Hart Street in Southport.

    https://x.com/SouthportRFC/status/1817931936267923686
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,196

    GIN1138 said:

    Axing road and rail project to plug a black hole seems opposite to be build, build, build to growth.

    Indeed. Everyone wants growth but how you achieve it and the choices you make to get it are always the problem...

    We'll just have to hope the doctors spend their 20% pay rise in the wider economy :D
    Which alone will increase their index linked pensions by more than a private sector will get as a pension for a lifetimes work
    Yes, there is nobody in the private sector that earns more than medical doctors.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,440
    edited July 29
    Off topic because I think we all know what Reeves is going to say today... How's Biden going to get his err "plans" for SCOTUS through before his term is up ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517

    Sandpit said:

    The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.

    The joys of using the exhaustive ballot system which is a form of quasi-AV.

    None of this first past the post crap.
    Oh God, not this again.

    An exhaustive series of ballots is nothing at all like AV.
    Multiple rounds of voting where the lowest ranked candidate is eliminated and we have a winner when somebody gets over 50%.

    How is that not like AV?
    Get to change your mind after each round. Can't change your order with AV.
    That’s why I said quasi-AV.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,420
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Jordan Peterson is trying to launch just such a cheap and accessible online university at the moment. He has a whole load of world-leading academics delivering lectures on a wide variety of subjects.

    https://petersonacademy.com/enroll $450 per year if you enroll now.

    The sticking point, as always, is the awarding (or otherwise) of a degree at the end of the course. It’s a very big if, but if he can find a way to award accredited degrees it has the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down.
    Surely the sticking point is Jordan Peterson being involved!

    Who doesn’t want an education from an insane, far right, climate change denying benzo addict?
    OSFTED? Sounds like a dream partnership really.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,358
    HYUFD said:

    mwadams said:

    HYUFD said:

    theProle said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    I agree with TSE, I think Jenrick and Tugendhat are the likely final 2 Tory MPs will put to members of those nominated.

    Jenrick then likely narrowly beats Tugendhat with the membership but it would be close

    They'll only do that if they are insane. Obviously the most right-wing choice wins with the membership, so if they've any sense at-all, they'll move heaven and earth to keep that slimeball Jenrick off the ballot.
    On the polling TSE showed this morning Jenrick has the second best net approval rating with the public after Tugendhat of the 6 candidates nominated, so Tory MPs would have made the right decision. The rightwing candidate doesn't always win the membership either, after all Davis lost to Cameron in 2005

    https://x.com/keiranpedley/status/1816040577453973865
    I feel the membership in 2005 (when I voted for Cameron) is rather different in complexion from 2024.
    Not so different, certainly if our Association is anything to go by many of the most rightwing in it left for Reform or lapsed their membership after Boris was removed and Sunak replaced Truss as leader
    Do you know why Reform failed to put a candidate up in Epping Forest when you'd have thought it would be a fairly good area for them?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,605
    Andy_JS said:

    The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.

    You mean someone will just decide to drop out?
    Yes. It's a long time to go through the motions.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 31,358

    Andy_JS said:

    The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.

    You mean someone will just decide to drop out?
    Yes. It's a long time to go through the motions.
    Knowing how large politicians' egos tend to be, it's difficult to see that happening imo.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,274
    . . . . meanwhile back at the ranch . . . and in case you missed it from last week . . .

    Wall Street Journal Editorial - J.D. Vance’s Basket of Deplorables
    Trump’s running mate is on the defensive over his views about the childless.

    Donald Trump’s choice of 39-year-old J.D. Vance as his running mate was supposed to present the GOP ticket as modern and looking to the future. Instead the campaign has found itself playing defense against Mr. Vance’s censorious views about women who don’t have children.

    As it always does, the press has been digging up the VP choice’s comments over the years for political scrutiny, and the Ohio Senator turns out to be a target-rich environment. As a Senate candidate in 2021 he told Tucker Carlson, then a Fox News host, that the U.S. is being run by “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.”

    That sounds like he was referring to Vice President Kamala Harris, who has two stepchildren but none of her own. The comment is the sort of smart-aleck crack that gets laughs in certain right-wing male precincts. But it doesn’t play well with the millions of female voters, many of them Republican, who will decide the presidential race.

    The remark has gone viral on social media and is being portrayed as an example of chauvinist views. They’re mocking it on TMZ, a sure sign that this is Mr. Vance’s first big cultural impression, and not a good one. . . .

    WSJ - Inside JD Vance’s Short-Lived Career as a Venture Capitalist

    Five years, three firms, two SPAC deals and a bankruptcy are the hallmarks of his stint in the tech industry

    JD Vance touted his career in venture capital last week in his address to the Republican National Convention. His foray in technology investing, though, was brief by industry standards.

    “I started businesses to create jobs in the kind of places that I grew up in,” the vice presidential candidate said in his convention speech. “My work taught me there is still so much talent and grit in the American heartland.” . . .
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 118,517
    This leadership contest seems a bit hollow with Rehman Chishti not standing due to losing his seat.

    Shades of Portillo in 1997.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,196
    Sandpit said:

    The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.

    The joys of using the exhaustive ballot system which is a form of quasi-AV.

    None of this first past the post crap.
    Oh God, not this again.

    An exhaustive series of ballots is nothing at all like AV.
    It might not be exactly like AV, but it's clearly like AV in some regards.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,022
    Universal Winter fuel payments ended
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,018
    Winter fuel allowance scrapped for those not getting credits.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,084
    Barnesian said:

    Reeves is good. Authoritive.

    Reeves is not a great fan of the previous government, for some reason.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,420

    9 billion wage increases coming from savings in departments

    The mythical efficiency saving every politician promises and still ends up with more civil servants at the end of it.
    The following is mandatory


  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,366
    “Because if we cannot afford it, we cannot do it. First at a Conservative Party conference last year, the former prime minister announced the introduction of a new qualification, the advanced British standard."

    Was that even in the Tory manifesto. I never heard them mention ever again after the conference.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,533

    ohnotnow said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    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...
    Yes. About 40% of the capacity is a job creation scheme for acadamics administrators and sundry hangers on, teaching weak subjects that are pointless to do a degree in and vocational subjects like Nursing and Policing that should never have required a degree in the first place.

    Shut them.

    1) Same way as Liverpool in the 80s. Through transition grants etc. The better ones can be supported to revert to being Politechnics and Technical Colleges concentrating principally on vocational non degree courses and day release courses for apprentices.

    2) Tell them tough.

    The whole sector will implode once some entrepreneur gets their act together for online courses at a fraction of current fees in any case.

    £9,250 a year for six hours of lectures (which is about it for many arts/humanities subjects) and use of a library is outrageous.

    Use the money saved to increase the number of Engineering, Science and Medical Doctor places and reduce the fees.

    John Major has a lot to answer for by destroying the Polytechnics and turning them into Poundshop Universities.
    Jordan Peterson is trying to launch just such a cheap and accessible online university at the moment. He has a whole load of world-leading academics delivering lectures on a wide variety of subjects.

    https://petersonacademy.com/enroll $450 per year if you enroll now.

    The sticking point, as always, is the awarding (or otherwise) of a degree at the end of the course. It’s a very big if, but if he can find a way to award accredited degrees it has the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down.
    Surely the sticking point is Jordan Peterson being involved!

    Also, none of this is new. Lots of places have MOOCs (massive open online courses) now. Standford, for example, has a great set that you can sign up for free, but you pay for the certification. When MOOCs were first a big, new thing a few years back, everyone said they had the potential to turn the whole university sector upside-down. The challenge is that it's harder to learn that way than if you are immersed in the university environment with fellow students and access to staff. (COVID-19 kind of proved this when everyone had to go online.)

    But for some people, MOOCs are great. If you can make yourself work through them, they are huge boon.
    I've been making my way through a lot of Andrew Ng's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Ng) new(ish) platform at :

    https://www.deeplearning.ai/courses/

    It's also really quite impressive (to me, old-ish bloke) how many world-class researchers and teachers there are putting out amazing content on youtube for free. Not going to get you a bit of paper and a gold star at the end of it of course.

    I do wonder about the fees the OU is charging though for largely remote self-learning.
    Karpathy has put out some excellent stuff.
    Indeed - his youtube channel is a trove of information. For anyone interested :

    https://www.youtube.com/@AndrejKarpathy/videos


    He announced his own learning platform a couple of weeks ago too :

    https://eurekalabs.ai/
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,455

    Andy_JS said:

    The way the Tory leadership contest is structured makes it possible that there won't need to be final vote. Unless there's a big difference of opinion between party members and MPs then it will surely be obvious who the consensus choice by then.

    You mean someone will just decide to drop out?
    Yes. It's a long time to go through the motions.
    Unkind of you to refer to the riverine crisis.
This discussion has been closed.