@Casino_Royale You could say that about several other countries as well. However, it would seem the House of Lords has a few criticisms of Europe. An unelected bunch of communists, who need "re-education?
Labour plans pension raid to fund lower student fees....Pensions seem like bankers bonuses, just something politicians feel they can "dip into" and it wont have any impact. Gordo already screwed them up, so here comes his right hand man Balls looking to repeat the same thing.
It's cropped, but that'd presumably be funded by dropping the annual 40k savings cap for private pensions even further. Makes it much harder for the self-employed to build up a decent tax-free pot. Discouraging saving could also mean far more reliance on the State in older age.
Tactically, a foolish move to if it encourages the over-50s to run scared of Labour and switch from UKIP to Conservative to protect their pensions.
That demographic is much more likely to vote too than the very young (and parents of teenagers) who Labour are presumably trying to attract with this.
All Labour seem to want to is tax more, spend more and borrow more and blow it all on a bunch of left wing policies that just pour the money down the drain.
Why does anyone support them?
I can't answer that. Regarding the opponent they have and the benign (well, near perfect) economic conditions the Conservatives have for the election, they should be walking this. Two years ago they would have bitten your right arm off for indicators as good as these.
Yet, they're not putting on the votes. I think immigration is a big failing, as is the arrogance with which the Conservatives have dealt with UKIP and the complaceny its shown towards its own natural members and activists, but I'm still not sure they'd be polling higher than 37-38% even if none of that had happened.
In almost all other English speaking countries centre-right "Conservative" parties have no problem getting 40%+ of the vote.
@Casino_Royale You could say that about several other countries as well. However, it would seem the House of Lords has a few criticisms of Europe. An unelected bunch of communists, who need "re-education?
I accept that the West ignored Russia, and possibly even treated them contemptuously in the mid-late 1990s, but that's far from an excuse to appease their aggression now.
The problem in Russia isn't communism; it's ultra-nationalism, corruption, Mafia capture of private wealth and a natural love of "strong leadership".
@Casino_Royale Some people feel, wrongly , that the Conservatives economic plan is for them to work harder for less, in order to clear the the deficit, while others abuse the laws and feather their own already gilded nests. Propaganda of course, and totally baseless.
@Casino_Royale Of course we are whiter than white, and it is them that are the aggressors,but you know what Russian propaganda is like? They will claim that the west broke agreements on the neutrality of the Ukraine in an expansionist move eastwards in order to gain a military and economic advantage.
I know those Russian propagandists are terrible! They even got a lookalike of Baroness Ashton to march with the anti-Russian protesters and condemn violence attributed to the Ukraine police (that turned out to be perpetrated by factions of the demonstrators)
Casino The Canadian Tories have not won over 40% since the 80s, even in 2011 when he won a narrow majority Harper won only 39.62%, and that was the Tories best performance in decades.
On first preference votes the Australian Liberals won 38% in 2013, 30% in 2010 and 36% in 2007
In the US Romney did win 47% in 2012, but in what is still basically a 2 party system he still lost, John Key by contrast got the same score in 2014 and was 1 seat off a majority under New Zealand's PR system
@Hengists_Gift Even worse, the chocolate king has said they fired on Russian orders. The truth lies in a murk of grey, and both sides see it differently.
What do pb's finest think is the minimum number of seats that the Lib Dems can get and still sensibly seek to form a coalition rather than offer confidence and supply?
The Lib Dems will not do a supply and confidence deal whatever the outcome.
If it ends up UKIP 4, Con 282, Lab 275, Lib Dems 28, SNP 40, PC 2 what will the Lib Dems do in this situation ?
What will anyone do?
I don't think a Labour/SNP alliance is a done deal, by any means. The two parties are like SPD/Die Linke in Germany.
I would hazard Miliband as PM of a minority government, huge financial instability and a second election in September or October. Cameron should remain Tory leader in those cicumstances (as Heath did after Feb
That he may, but the no confidence motion has to be carried by a majority of the Parliamentary party. I think Dave would prevail.
I had a thought, after May, William Hague will no longer be the ex leader, elder statesman who would take over if Dave fell under a bus.
It dawned on me, there's only one candidate to fill that role after May.
IDS.
Anyone else get a chill down their spine at that thought?
Being an ex-leader doesn't make you an elder statesman. The fall-under-a-bus candidate with Cameron still as PM would be Hammond probably.
I'm hoping it would be Ken Clarke.
Out of interest, in your opinion, who would have won the Tory Leadership in 2001, if the final two names that went to party members were Ken Clarke & Michael Portillo?
Clarke. I've written a counter-factual of that scenario based on a single MP changing his or her vote in the final round of the MP's ballot.
Portillo would have won, hands-down. The election took place at the height of euromania in the UK, and Clarke's support for that was terminal. Conservative Future was also rooting for Portillo big time as the first of the early modernisers.
Incidentally, I tried to vote objectively in the 2001 ballot as I did have concerns about IDS. However, I found Clarke's campaign material so poor and its tone so arrogant that it simply firmed up my vote for IDS.
I can't understand what Kenneth Clarke was thinking of, by proclaiming his support for the Euro.
Labour plans pension raid to fund lower student fees....Pensions seem like bankers bonuses, just something politicians feel they can "dip into" and it wont have any impact. Gordo already screwed them up, so here comes his right hand man Balls looking to repeat the same thing.
It's cropped, but that'd presumably be funded by dropping the annual 40k savings cap for private pensions even further. Makes it much harder for the self-employed to build up a decent tax-free pot. Discouraging saving could also mean far more reliance on the State in older age.
Tactically, a foolish move to if it encourages the over-50s to run scared of Labour and switch from UKIP to Conservative to protect their pensions.
That demographic is much more likely to vote too than the very young (and parents of teenagers) who Labour are presumably trying to attract with this.
All Labour seem to want to is tax more, spend more and borrow more and blow it all on a bunch of left wing policies that just pour the money down the drain.
Why does anyone support them?
I can't answer that. Regarding the opponent they have and the benign (well, near perfect) economic conditions the Conservatives have for the election, they should be walking this. Two years ago they would have bitten your right arm off for indicators as good as these.
Yet, they're not putting on the votes. I think immigration is a big failing, as is the arrogance with which the Conservatives have dealt with UKIP and the complaceny its shown towards its own natural members and activists, but I'm still not sure they'd be polling higher than 37-38% even if none of that had happened.
In almost all other English speaking countries centre-right "Conservative" parties have no problem getting 40%+ of the vote.
The Conservative Party has calculated that it is electorally counter-productive to attempt to appeal to socially conservative voters. I think that's the wrong call, but we'll see on May 7th.
Casino The Canadian Tories have not won over 40% since the 80s, even in 2011 when he won a narrow majority Harper won only 39.62%, and that was the Tories best performance in decades.
On first preference votes the Australian Liberals won 38% in 2013, 30% in 2010 and 36% in 2007
In the US Romney did win 47% in 2012, but in what is still basically a 2 party system he still lost, John Key by contrast got the same score in 2014 and was 1 seat off a majority under New Zealand's PR system
Harper basically got 40%, but he has been in power since 2006 and has progressively built his vote up. For Australia, you have to add the Liberal National party and National Party to the totals (they always fight elections as a coalition) who got just over 45%. John Key in New Zealand got 47% last year, as you point out. The US republicans control the House of Representatives, Senate, most State governorships and its only the presidency that poses a problem for them.
All much higher than Cameron. The British Conservatives are the worst performing of the anglosphere.
SeanF If and when we got PR we would have a socially liberal centre right party and a socially conservative one, at the moment we have Clegg's LDs and UKIP and the Tories in between them
@Casino_Royale Some people feel, wrongly , that the Conservatives economic plan is for them to work harder for less, in order to clear the the deficit, while others abuse the laws and feather their own already gilded nests. Propaganda of course, and totally baseless.
Indeed, it is. I'm not shy of criticising the Conservatives at all (as you'll probably know if you've been following my posts) but it's hard to fault their overall stewardship of the economy; although I can, and do, take them to town on particular public spending decisions.
On education, tax, pensions, welfare, business, science and transport they've generally been impressive. On strategic leadership, housing, health, immigration, defence, international aid, europe, constitutional affairs, and socio-cultural 'values' issues, much less so.
SeanF If and when we got PR we would have a socially liberal centre right party and a socially conservative one, at the moment we have Clegg's LDs and UKIP and the Tories in between them
Yes indeed. The Conservative leadership are obviously uncomfortable with the views of the grassroots. They think the grassroots have nowhere else to go, or at any rate, will come to their senses on May 7th.
I think the view was that you could balance austerity with leftish social policies. All that did was to drive away people who disliked leftish social policies, while failing to win over the people who disliked austerity.
Casino Harper won 29% in 2004 (lower than even Major got in 1997, and the Progressive Conservatives won only 16% in 1993), 36% in 2006 and 37% in 2008 (about the same as Cameron got in 2010) and 39% in 2011.
The Liberals and Nationals are separate parties (the Nationals for example at the time of the last Liberal spill said they may not support a Turnbull-led Liberal party). They tend to form a coalition but it is not a certainty
The US Republicans have only won the popular vote at the US general election once since 1988, in 2004, the Tories have won it twice, in 1992 and 2010. The US mid-terms are basically the equivalent of UK council, regional assembly, London and European elections
SeanF Indeed, which is why Cameron has had to move towards a tougher line on immigration, promise an EU referendum and back expansion of grammar schools. However, ideologically I have no problem with different centre right parties if they have distinct philosophies
The week Labour's biggest non-union donor was revealed as an 'industrial scale' promulgator of tax avoidance schemes?
I doubt people are much fussed by rent boys (or girls) these days, and those who are have fled to the warm embrace of the UKIP sauna fold......
When is that tell all book from Osborne hooker friend going to get published? She has promised to land loads of famous Tories in the s##t for over 5 years now...that is according to the Mirror anyway.
@CarlottaVance "I doubt people are much fussed by rent boys (or girls) these days" It's the drugs aspect that tends to be the clincher, it more than doubles the impact of the financial fumblings.
@CarlottaVance "I doubt people are much fussed by rent boys (or girls) these days" It's the drugs aspect that tends to be the clincher, it more than doubles the impact of the financial fumblings.
Really? The way BBC dealt with Paul Flowers...a banker, drug addict and rent boy user...they saw him a poor lost soul.
@FrancisUrquhart And other parts of the media crucified him. But it is the same as Ed Balls' window cleaner not giving him a receipt, or the Milly Dowler moment. The headline is what people remember, not the nuances.
@FrancisUrquhart And other parts of the media crucified him. But it is the same as Ed Balls' window cleaner not giving him a receipt, or the Milly Dowler moment. The headline is what people remember, not the nuances.
@Smarmeron The clue for all the BBC haters out there, is that as it is notionally independent, and doesn't have the same pressure to sensationalize personal stories. This means we tend to perceive it as biased, or "soft reporting", when it disagrees with our beliefs or morals.
Returned to Blighty tonight - looking at front pages, I saw Ed Balls is to raid pensions to fund the £6k tuition fee promise on the Times... did a google to find out the details and stab me, it appears the raid on wealthy pensioner pots appears to have been announced for funding a multitude of other things in recent years too! Just try 'ed balls wealthy pension raid'
Bankers bonus was spent x10, I think the pension raid is being spent on 4 or 5 things...
@Pulpstar The point of balance depends on which media you choose to represent it. Which is your balanced choice?
Was being a bit tongue in cheek, Radio 4 definitely has a bit of a left wing tincture to it though in the same way the Daily Telegraph is centre-right. I mentioned Nick Robinson as he invented the crass "Dowler" comparison.
How do the Scots pay for their universities without the tuition fees ?
Because Student Loans are still a massive net cost for the public finances. Currently loan advances total around £9.5bn and repayments less than £1.5bn.
@Pulpstar Different perceptions? All the Labour "tax stories" look incredibly weak to me when I look at the details. How it is perceived by the time of the election will probably be the pointer to the winner.
How do the Scots pay for their universities without the tuition fees ?
Because Student Loans are still a massive net cost for the public finances. Currently loan advances total around £9.5bn and repayments less than £1.5bn.
And by ensuring its the middle class - who vote - not the poorest - who have benefited most from 'free' tuition:
How do the Scots pay for their universities without the tuition fees ?
Because Student Loans are still a massive net cost for the public finances. Currently loan advances total around £9.5bn and repayments less than £1.5bn.
And by ensuring its the middle class - who vote - not the poorest - who have benefited most from 'free' tuition:
Why should the middle not benefit in some ways from the Social Contract the state offers? It is not particularly unnatural for states to invest heavily in education for the long term benefit it provides and much can also be said for health care in the same way, they are People Infrastructure projects. What is so magical about 18 that suddenly the state decides it will no longer provide education for free?
Why not reduce that to 12 and require fees for high school? After all, some people alreaday pay for this privately (and still pay in taxes for everyone else). Those who complete high school earn more than those who drop out at 16, why not expect them to pay for this? Or 5, why should any education be provided by the state when it can be privatised?
The Student Loans myth is one of those regular memes in UK politics where the political dogma is completely isolated from the reality. Tuition Fees have not benefited the public finances to any meaningful extent and they may NEVER do.
How do the Scots pay for their universities without the tuition fees ?
Because Student Loans are still a massive net cost for the public finances. Currently loan advances total around £9.5bn and repayments less than £1.5bn.
And by ensuring its the middle class - who vote - not the poorest - who have benefited most from 'free' tuition:
Why should the middle not benefit in some ways from the Social Contract the state offers? It is not particularly unnatural for states to invest heavily in education for the long term benefit it provides and much can also be said for health care in the same way, they are People Infrastructure projects. What is so magical about 18 that suddenly the state decides it will no longer provide education for free?
Why not reduce that to 12 and require fees for high school? After all, some people alreaday pay for this privately (and still pay in taxes for everyone else). Those who complete high school earn more than those who drop out at 16, why not expect them to pay for this? Or 5, why should any education be provided by the state when it can be privatised?
The Student Loans myth is one of those regular memes in UK politics where the political dogma is completely isolated from the reality. Tuition Fees have not benefited the public finances to any meaningful extent and they may NEVER do.
I think the way fees and loans were in England around the year 2000 was OK (When I went to Uni) but fees at £9,000 creates a weird distortion in the system when you combine it with the ridiculous target of getting half?! the population to University and certainly a financial black hole.
Selling off the earlier loan book for way below NBV was an odd one too.
How do the Scots pay for their universities without the tuition fees ?
Because Student Loans are still a massive net cost for the public finances. Currently loan advances total around £9.5bn and repayments less than £1.5bn.
And by ensuring its the middle class - who vote - not the poorest - who have benefited most from 'free' tuition:
Why should the middle not benefit in some ways from the Social Contract the state offers? It is not particularly unnatural for states to invest heavily in education for the long term benefit it provides and much can also be said for health care in the same way, they are People Infrastructure projects. What is so magical about 18 that suddenly the state decides it will no longer provide education for free?
Why not reduce that to 12 and require fees for high school? After all, some people alreaday pay for this privately (and still pay in taxes for everyone else). Those who complete high school earn more than those who drop out at 16, why not expect them to pay for this? Or 5, why should any education be provided by the state when it can be privatised?
The Student Loans myth is one of those regular memes in UK politics where the political dogma is completely isolated from the reality. Tuition Fees have not benefited the public finances to any meaningful extent and they may NEVER do.
Whats the current and forecast state of the Scottish student loan book ?
SAAS funding budget for 2013/14 was £750m this includes tuition fees and maintenance loans and other costs. It is around 8% of the England budget for loans alone, so less once other funding costs are added. Not really prepared to do further number crunching on this. I think this is enough to say Scotland's No Fees system is perfectly sustainable and in line with English Loan Based system costs.
How do the Scots pay for their universities without the tuition fees ?
Because Student Loans are still a massive net cost for the public finances. Currently loan advances total around £9.5bn and repayments less than £1.5bn.
And by ensuring its the middle class - who vote - not the poorest - who have benefited most from 'free' tuition:
Why should the middle not benefit in some ways from the Social Contract the state offers? It is not particularly unnatural for states to invest heavily in education for the long term benefit it provides and much can also be said for health care in the same way, they are People Infrastructure projects. What is so magical about 18 that suddenly the state decides it will no longer provide education for free?
Why not reduce that to 12 and require fees for high school? After all, some people alreaday pay for this privately (and still pay in taxes for everyone else). Those who complete high school earn more than those who drop out at 16, why not expect them to pay for this? Or 5, why should any education be provided by the state when it can be privatised?
The Student Loans myth is one of those regular memes in UK politics where the political dogma is completely isolated from the reality. Tuition Fees have not benefited the public finances to any meaningful extent and they may NEVER do.
Student Loans are not just about the public purse - they are also about getting people to value (and if its not good enough, demanding improvement) the education they receive.
Unlike Scotland, there is little evidence in England that the poor have suffered from the introduction of student loans, contrary to what many expected.
To simplify, 'Free tuition' in Scotland has disproportionately benefited the middle class as grants for the poor have been cut to pay for it. In England, despite fees, the poor are more likely to now enter higher education than before.
I think the way fees and loans were in England around the year 2000 was OK (When I went to Uni) but fees at £9,000 creates a weird distortion in the system when you combine it with the ridiculous target of getting half?! the population to University and certainly a financial black hole.
Selling off the earlier loan book for way below NBV was an odd one too.
The problem is that there have been no savings from abolishing the grant system, a degree inflation problem caused by too many people with General Degrees and a complete failure to focus HIgher Education on "things that matter", i.e. Science and Specialisation degrees.
It has also allowed mass Nationalisation of the training costs of entire professions - the most notable being Accountants. Where in the 70s the idea of needing a degree to be an accountant was farcical, today the bulk of professional training is Nationalised.
The same applies, of course to "Apprenticeships". Probably because to the heavily voting older population it means "learning a trade" whereas the reality today is that you become an "Apprentice Office Junior" or a Tax Dodge where your employer decides your an Apprentice for a government pay out.
I think the way fees and loans were in England around the year 2000 was OK (When I went to Uni) but fees at £9,000 creates a weird distortion in the system when you combine it with the ridiculous target of getting half?! the population to University and certainly a financial black hole.
Selling off the earlier loan book for way below NBV was an odd one too.
The problem is that there have been no savings from abolishing the grant system, a degree inflation problem caused by too many people with General Degrees and a complete failure to focus HIgher Education on "things that matter", i.e. Science and Specialisation degrees.
It has also allowed mass Nationalisation of the training costs of entire professions - the most notable being Accountants. Where in the 70s the idea of needing a degree to be an accountant was farcical, today the bulk of professional training is Nationalised.
The same applies, of course to "Apprenticeships". Probably because to the heavily voting older population it means "learning a trade" whereas the reality today is that you become an "Apprentice Office Junior" or a Tax Dodge where your employer decides your an Apprentice for a government pay out.
Heh I'm a management accountant by trade with a maths degree. Should finish up doing CIMA at some point, could stick BSc (Hons) CIMA Adv Dip MA after my name should I ever need to apply for another job
Tbh If I was 20 years old now I'd probably just go straight for CIMA or ICAEUW or ACCA. Taking on 10 grand of debt wasn't a worry when I started Uni, £40k is something else with no asset against it.
Student Loans are not just about the public purse - they are also about getting people to value (and if its not good enough, demanding improvement) the education they receive.
Unlike Scotland, there is little evidence in England that the poor have suffered from the introduction of student loans, contrary to what many expected.
To simplify, 'Free tuition' in Scotland has disproportionately benefited the middle class as grants for the poor have been cut to pay for it. In England, despite fees, the poor are more likely to now enter higher education than before.
I know which outcome I prefer.
You can't "demand improvement" when the moral hazard of a bad choice is generally not repairable. you can't realise you made a bad choice of degree course and repair that for your own career path. The deal is done and the "value" is not known by the individual until they see the demonstrable outcome which might be 20 years later. The market failure is pretty clear, for both those who make bad choices and those whose choices turn out to be worthless thanks to unpredicted changes in the jobs market in future years.
The straw clutching that "fees allow more poor kids to go to University" is a pretty obvious misconception. Correlation is not causation. There's no international linkage between fees for university tuition and participation rates. The growth in the UK is part of a general growth in all countries regardless of funding models of Higher education participation.
The problem in Scotland - slowly being addressed - is that Labour council's have historically horrific education outcomes. The league tables for Glasgow's public schools are appalling. It doesn't matter the funding model when no student at Govan High School left with 3 or more Highers in 2013.
Student Loans are not just about the public purse - they are also about getting people to value (and if its not good enough, demanding improvement) the education they receive.
Unlike Scotland, there is little evidence in England that the poor have suffered from the introduction of student loans, contrary to what many expected.
To simplify, 'Free tuition' in Scotland has disproportionately benefited the middle class as grants for the poor have been cut to pay for it. In England, despite fees, the poor are more likely to now enter higher education than before.
I know which outcome I prefer.
You can't "demand improvement" when the moral hazard of a bad choice is generally not repairable.
In England you can change course. People frequently do.
'Free Tuition' is a bit like 'Higher Marginal Tax rates' - the outcomes are often not what might be expected.
To my mind the University system worked perfectly well before 1998, New Labour's harebrained idea to try and get 50% of the population going to Uni and the subsequent carry on by all the main parties was daft and expensive.
Student Loans are not just about the public purse - they are also about getting people to value (and if its not good enough, demanding improvement) the education they receive.
Unlike Scotland, there is little evidence in England that the poor have suffered from the introduction of student loans, contrary to what many expected.
To simplify, 'Free tuition' in Scotland has disproportionately benefited the middle class as grants for the poor have been cut to pay for it. In England, despite fees, the poor are more likely to now enter higher education than before.
I know which outcome I prefer.
You can't "demand improvement" when the moral hazard of a bad choice is generally not repairable.
In England you can change course. People frequently do.
'Free Tuition' is a bit like 'Higher Marginal Tax rates' - the outcomes are often not what might be expected.
Changing course when?
In fourth year when the applications they make with their general degree find that the competition is between 1000 applicants per graduate slot compared to 3 or 4 for specialism and science?
Or five years after graduating when it becomes definitively clear that the degree was absolutely worthless for career progression?
Or ten years after graduating when you've worked twice as hard, done professional studies independently at your own expense and now have to start repaying the loans despite never having benefited from it in any way.
As I said, the moral hazard is too detached for the market to make a meaningful impact. The University providing the shitty course isn't going to tell the individual they are doing the wrong course and it won't help them. The Uni will just keep taking the money.
And you still haven't explained why 18 is the magic number to start charging. Why not 16, why not 12, why not 5. Show some logical consistency. Either education should be charged or it should not.
Student Loans are not just about the public purse - they are also about getting people to value (and if its not good enough, demanding improvement) the education they receive.
Unlike Scotland, there is little evidence in England that the poor have suffered from the introduction of student loans, contrary to what many expected.
To simplify, 'Free tuition' in Scotland has disproportionately benefited the middle class as grants for the poor have been cut to pay for it. In England, despite fees, the poor are more likely to now enter higher education than before.
I know which outcome I prefer.
You can't "demand improvement" when the moral hazard of a bad choice is generally not repairable.
In England you can change course. People frequently do.
'Free Tuition' is a bit like 'Higher Marginal Tax rates' - the outcomes are often not what might be expected.
Changing course when?
And you still haven't explained why 18 is the magic number to start charging. Why not 16, why not 12, why not 5. Show some logical consistency. Either education should be charged or it should not.
When you form the view that the course is not worth it - week one, month one, year one, whenever.
As for your whataboutary - surely when half the population decides not to pursue education is as good a time as any to decide those who wish to pursue it to pay for it? Or would you continue to fund education indefinitely? A lovely idea - but as Scotland demonstrates, the poor pay.
I appreciate the outcomes do not coincide with your prejudices, but you're making yourself look silly.....
To my mind the University system worked perfectly well before 1998, New Labour's harebrained idea to try and get 50% of the population going to Uni and the subsequent carry on by all the main parties was daft and expensive.
While Labours 50% rule was utterly criminal, it did start before then. Pretty much with the abolition of Grants and the Polytechnic conversion to Universities. Graduates were being churned out by the mid 90 based on these reforms and the economy did not adapt to the higher numbers.
Student Loans are not just about the public purse - they are also about getting people to value (and if its not good enough, demanding improvement) the education they receive.
Unlike Scotland, there is little evidence in England that the poor have suffered from the introduction of student loans, contrary to what many expected.
To simplify, 'Free tuition' in Scotland has disproportionately benefited the middle class as grants for the poor have been cut to pay for it. In England, despite fees, the poor are more likely to now enter higher education than before.
I know which outcome I prefer.
You can't "demand improvement" when the moral hazard of a bad choice is generally not repairable.
In England you can change course. People frequently do.
'Free Tuition' is a bit like 'Higher Marginal Tax rates' - the outcomes are often not what might be expected.
Changing course when?
And you still haven't explained why 18 is the magic number to start charging. Why not 16, why not 12, why not 5. Show some logical consistency. Either education should be charged or it should not.
When you form the view that the course is not worth it - week one, month one, year one, whenever.
As for your whataboutary - surely when half the population decides not to pursue education is as good a time as any to decide those who wish to pursue it to pay for it? Or would you continue to fund education indefinitely? A lovely idea - but as Scotland demonstrates, the poor pay.
I appreciate the outcomes do not coincide with your prejudices, but you're making yourself look silly.....
What is the cause of this realisation in week one or month one or year one. I gave you some logical reasoning for why the implications of bad choice might be realised and realistic time scales when this will happen and why this detaches the moral hazard from the market conditions.
Student Loans are not just about the public purse - they are also about getting people to value (and if its not good enough, demanding improvement) the education they receive.
Unlike Scotland, there is little evidence in England that the poor have suffered from the introduction of student loans, contrary to what many expected.
To simplify, 'Free tuition' in Scotland has disproportionately benefited the middle class as grants for the poor have been cut to pay for it. In England, despite fees, the poor are more likely to now enter higher education than before.
I know which outcome I prefer.
You can't "demand improvement" when the moral hazard of a bad choice is generally not repairable.
In England you can change course. People frequently do.
'Free Tuition' is a bit like 'Higher Marginal Tax rates' - the outcomes are often not what might be expected.
Changing course when?
And you still haven't explained why 18 is the magic number to start charging. Why not 16, why not 12, why not 5. Show some logical consistency. Either education should be charged or it should not.
When you form the view that the course is not worth it - week one, month one, year one, whenever.
As for your whataboutary - surely when half the population decides not to pursue education is as good a time as any to decide those who wish to pursue it to pay for it? Or would you continue to fund education indefinitely? A lovely idea - but as Scotland demonstrates, the poor pay.
I appreciate the outcomes do not coincide with your prejudices, but you're making yourself look silly.....
What's your logic behind these early epiphanies.
To list a few:
-quality of teaching -content of course work -discussion with other students in higher years.....including those who have heard horror stories from the previous year's milk round.....
-quality of teaching -content of course work -discussion with other students in higher years.....including those who have heard horror stories from the previous year's milk round.....
Its really not that complicated.......
Even if you were not missing the point, please tell me how your average 18 year old knows how good the teaching and coursework is, what basis of comparison do they have. But the real point was not the quality of the course per se but the career opportunity Media Studies or History or English Literature or Politics are likely to offer. It will be years before that naive 18 year old really understands it. And their parents, often with a rosy eyes view of a University Degree as the ticket it no longer is, may not be able to offer any wisdom.
The discussion between years, where it exists, is a potential moment where the moral hazard becomes real. Of course this is tempered by the authority guidance to continue as is and in many cases, having decided through Higher or A Level choices there may not be the option to switch to a course which is meaningful. If you're A Levels are English, History and Art, you aren't getting to switch to Engineering.
Moral Hazard ONLY works as a market force where it bears on the individual. There are far too many ways in which the individual is isolated by both time, peer and authority away from any understanding of the moral hazard they face.
There is no reliable, rational way for the market to dictate good outcomes.
-quality of teaching -content of course work -discussion with other students in higher years.....including those who have heard horror stories from the previous year's milk round.....
Its really not that complicated.......
The discussion between years, where it exists, is a potential moment where the moral hazard becomes real.
It was frequent, extensive and very helpful, in my experience (don't go to 'X's lectures, just get the notes, avoid 'Y' and so forth.)
Several of my cohort changed course - clearly our experiences have been very different, you are observing mountains of difficulty, while I saw molehills of brief haggling - almost always resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.
Unless your argument is that paying £9,000/year makes students suddenly indifferent to the quality and likely prospects of their course?
I think the view was that you could balance austerity with leftish social policies. All that did was to drive away people who disliked leftish social policies, while failing to win over the people who disliked austerity.
But this was self-evidently always going to be the case since Labour also offered socially liberal policies (albeit with more conviction that the Conservatives) and they were offering a more cuddly, socially responsible form of austerity. The idea that those people would ever go to the Conservatives was fanciful in the extreme, which means by extension that dropping your core vote in pursuit of them was idiotic in the extreme.
Regarding tuition fees, I think the point is that tertiary education (i.e. university) is the point at which the individual begins to benefit much more than society as a whole. And therefore, the cost burden should begin to move away from the population at large, and towards the specific benificiary.
Quite like Farage's idea of no fees for selected courses tbh. Seems better than Labour's not quite sticking plaster approach.
Farage's idea is not stupid at all. Attempt to encourage people to take degrees that benefit society as a whole - rather than merely the individual.
The issues with it - which are more about implementation - are (1) that part of the whole rationale behind fees was to encourage competition between education providers, and therefore reduce the cost of education. Imperial College London can charge more for a science degree, because it offers a better science degree. And (2) by having some fees paid centrally by subject, you encourage universities to take on many people in those subjects, regardless of their ability to sensibly teach them. An Awful University (Kilburn) starts offering Engineering degree places to people with two Es in Theatre Studies and PE. Even if these people never graduate, it picks up some decent fees for a few year from central government.
Very moderate rating for The Shooting Star (PB.com's new watering hole) and way behind Dirty Dick's according to TripAdvisor, i.e. 11,152nd in London, compared with DD's 6,467th (in both cases out of a total of 18,287). Neither is too brilliant mind, on that basis!
Quite like Farage's idea of no fees for selected courses tbh. Seems better than Labour's not quite sticking plaster approach.
Farage's idea is not stupid at all. Attempt to encourage people to take degrees that benefit society as a whole - rather than merely the individual.
The issues with it - which are more about implementation - are (1) that part of the whole rationale behind fees was to encourage competition between education providers, and therefore reduce the cost of education. Imperial College London can charge more for a science degree, because it offers a better science degree. And (2) by having some fees paid centrally by subject, you encourage universities to take on many people in those subjects, regardless of their ability to sensibly teach them. An Awful University (Kilburn) starts offering Engineering degree places to people with two Es in Theatre Studies and PE. Even if these people never graduate, it picks up some decent fees for a few year from central government.
Don't universities get audited by other institutions to ensure that what they are offering is actually any good? I'd have thought it would be possible to work out who it is we should be funding.
I think the bigger problem is where to draw the line. The medical related courses are obviously worthy of a higher status, and students studying self-indulgent courses like English Literature should pay more. But if the government started to differentiate I can imagine the professionally offended kicking off.
Quite like Farage's idea of no fees for selected courses tbh. Seems better than Labour's not quite sticking plaster approach.
Farage's idea is not stupid at all. Attempt to encourage people to take degrees that benefit society as a whole - rather than merely the individual.
The issues with it - which are more about implementation - are (1) that part of the whole rationale behind fees was to encourage competition between education providers, and therefore reduce the cost of education. Imperial College London can charge more for a science degree, because it offers a better science degree. And (2) by having some fees paid centrally by subject, you encourage universities to take on many people in those subjects, regardless of their ability to sensibly teach them. An Awful University (Kilburn) starts offering Engineering degree places to people with two Es in Theatre Studies and PE. Even if these people never graduate, it picks up some decent fees for a few year from central government.
self-indulgent courses like English Literature should pay more.
Having studied both science (chemistry) and English literature, I learned different things from both.....and wouldn't describe one as 'useful', the other 'self indulgent'........
Quite like Farage's idea of no fees for selected courses tbh. Seems better than Labour's not quite sticking plaster approach.
Farage's idea is not stupid at all. Attempt to encourage people to take degrees that benefit society as a whole - rather than merely the individual.
The issues with it - which are more about implementation - are (1) that part of the whole rationale behind fees was to encourage competition between education providers, and therefore reduce the cost of education. Imperial College London can charge more for a science degree, because it offers a better science degree. And (2) by having some fees paid centrally by subject, you encourage universities to take on many people in those subjects, regardless of their ability to sensibly teach them. An Awful University (Kilburn) starts offering Engineering degree places to people with two Es in Theatre Studies and PE. Even if these people never graduate, it picks up some decent fees for a few year from central government.
self-indulgent courses like English Literature should pay more.
Having studied both science (chemistry) and English literature, I learned different things from both.....and wouldn't describe one as 'useful', the other 'self indulgent'........
I was being deliberately provocative. I did a geography degree and would describe it as quite self indulgent.
What's interesting is that the geography department at my University stopped being the "School of Geography" and became "The Centre for the Environment" as it meant they were entitled to a lot more funding as the focus was on climate change. I suspect they'd argue that what they and their students do is very important, but I'm not sure I'd agree.
Quite like Farage's idea of no fees for selected courses tbh. Seems better than Labour's not quite sticking plaster approach.
Farage's idea is not stupid at all. Attempt to encourage people to take degrees that benefit society as a whole - rather than merely the individual.
The issues with it - which are more about implementation - are (1) that part of the whole rationale behind fees was to encourage competition between education providers, and therefore reduce the cost of education. Imperial College London can charge more for a science degree, because it offers a better science degree. And (2) by having some fees paid centrally by subject, you encourage universities to take on many people in those subjects, regardless of their ability to sensibly teach them. An Awful University (Kilburn) starts offering Engineering degree places to people with two Es in Theatre Studies and PE. Even if these people never graduate, it picks up some decent fees for a few year from central government.
Don't universities get audited by other institutions to ensure that what they are offering is actually any good? I'd have thought it would be possible to work out who it is we should be funding.
I think the bigger problem is where to draw the line. The medical related courses are obviously worthy of a higher status, and students studying self-indulgent courses like English Literature should pay more. But if the government started to differentiate I can imagine the professionally offended kicking off.
My point was more that universities could accept people they knew would be terrible engineers/medics/programmers (and would simply not turn up).
There is a side point here: if we dramatically increase our production of medics (to use an analogy...) we will probably simply start exporting them. Do we reclaim tuition fees if people move to the US after graduation?
Regarding tuition fees, I think the point is that tertiary education (i.e. university) is the point at which the individual begins to benefit much more than society as a whole. And therefore, the cost burden should begin to move away from the population at large, and towards the specific benificiary.
Yet this doesn't stand scrutiny.
University provides both aspects, there are studies which are of great benefit to society without being particularly lucrative to the individual, such as Nursing or Teaching, the vast majority of whom may be comfortable but will never be wealthy.
There are studies where the individual may benefit society or may benefit individually. A scientist could provide a breakthrough which is not personally (greatly) beneficial but has a tremendous positive effect on society. Alternatively their education might lead them to create and hold the patent to an incredibly lucrative invention which, while not game-changing for society, makes them very wealthy.
And of course other outcomes could leave individual and society with both or neither.
The choice made by a 17 year old, in most cases, may have nothing to do with the outcome and the market cannot be relied upon (and may well be unable to) force the beneficial outcomes (for individual or society) that you or I may want.
Not to mention those individuals that are individually successful will pay more tax over a lifetime WITHOUT the need for a form of graduate tax (which is what income-threshold repayment loans are) and provide more demand in the economy.
Ultimately, it's still not logical. An 18 year old completing school with A Levels has a similar discrepancy on life chances over a 16 year old leaving school before they sit their GCSEs.
Regarding tuition fees, I think the point is that tertiary education (i.e. university) is the point at which the individual begins to benefit much more than society as a whole. And therefore, the cost burden should begin to move away from the population at large, and towards the specific benificiary.
Yet this doesn't stand scrutiny.
University provides both aspects, there are studies which are of great benefit to society without being particularly lucrative to the individual, such as Nursing or Teaching, the vast majority of whom may be comfortable but will never be wealthy.
There are studies where the individual may benefit society or may benefit individually. A scientist could provide a breakthrough which is not personally (greatly) beneficial but has a tremendous positive effect on society. Alternatively their education might lead them to create and hold the patent to an incredibly lucrative invention which, while not game-changing for society, makes them very wealthy.
And of course other outcomes could leave individual and society with both or neither.
The choice made by a 17 year old, in most cases, may have nothing to do with the outcome and the market cannot be relied upon (and may well be unable to) force the beneficial outcomes (for individual or society) that you or I may want.
Not to mention those individuals that are individually successful will pay more tax over a lifetime WITHOUT the need for a form of graduate tax (which is what income-threshold repayment loans are) and provide more demand in the economy.
Ultimately, it's still not logical. An 18 year old completing school with A Levels has a similar discrepancy on life chances over a 16 year old leaving school before they sit their GCSEs.
I think you're agreeing with me... while pretending not to...
We both agree that there are certain subjects which principally benefit society at large (say medicine) and that there subjects which principally benefit the individual (say business studies), and there are subjects of dubious societal and personal benefits (say media studies).
It makes sense for the state to pay for more of the tuition fees when society benefits, and less when it is the individual that benefits.
Finally: the point about income tax is a fair one, but ignores the fact that (1) certain degrees are not correlated with higher lifetime earnings, and (2) your logic seems slightly unfair to people who earn the money without having extracted the benefits of education from the state.
Comments
You could say that about several other countries as well. However, it would seem the House of Lords has a few criticisms of Europe.
An unelected bunch of communists, who need "re-education?
Yet, they're not putting on the votes. I think immigration is a big failing, as is the arrogance with which the Conservatives have dealt with UKIP and the complaceny its shown towards its own natural members and activists, but I'm still not sure they'd be polling higher than 37-38% even if none of that had happened.
In almost all other English speaking countries centre-right "Conservative" parties have no problem getting 40%+ of the vote.
The problem in Russia isn't communism; it's ultra-nationalism, corruption, Mafia capture of private wealth and a natural love of "strong leadership".
Some people feel, wrongly , that the Conservatives economic plan is for them to work harder for less, in order to clear the the deficit, while others abuse the laws and feather their own already gilded nests.
Propaganda of course, and totally baseless.
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/rxYpRF0uc6c/0.jpg
On first preference votes the Australian Liberals won 38% in 2013, 30% in 2010 and 36% in 2007
In the US Romney did win 47% in 2012, but in what is still basically a 2 party system he still lost, John Key by contrast got the same score in 2014 and was 1 seat off a majority under New Zealand's PR system
Even worse, the chocolate king has said they fired on Russian orders.
The truth lies in a murk of grey, and both sides see it differently.
Tory Mark Menzies' rent boy ready to name another Conservative punter
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-mark-menzies-rent-boy-5201002
All much higher than Cameron. The British Conservatives are the worst performing of the anglosphere.
On education, tax, pensions, welfare, business, science and transport they've generally been impressive. On strategic leadership, housing, health, immigration, defence, international aid, europe, constitutional affairs, and socio-cultural 'values' issues, much less so.
Right, I'm off to bed now. Too tired. Goodnight.
Classic
I think the view was that you could balance austerity with leftish social policies. All that did was to drive away people who disliked leftish social policies, while failing to win over the people who disliked austerity.
BBC ticker.
This could go horribly wrong, it is, according to the report, residential
The Liberals and Nationals are separate parties (the Nationals for example at the time of the last Liberal spill said they may not support a Turnbull-led Liberal party). They tend to form a coalition but it is not a certainty
The US Republicans have only won the popular vote at the US general election once since 1988, in 2004, the Tories have won it twice, in 1992 and 2010. The US mid-terms are basically the equivalent of UK council, regional assembly, London and European elections
The UKPR polling average stands at
CON 32%(nc), LAB 33%(-1), LDEM 8%(+1), UKIP 15%(+1), GRN 6%(-1)
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9262
The week Labour's biggest non-union donor was revealed as an 'industrial scale' promulgator of tax avoidance schemes?
I doubt people are much fussed by rent boys (or girls) these days, and those who are have fled to the warm embrace of the UKIP sauna fold......
"I doubt people are much fussed by rent boys (or girls) these days"
It's the drugs aspect that tends to be the clincher, it more than doubles the impact of the financial fumblings.
And other parts of the media crucified him.
But it is the same as Ed Balls' window cleaner not giving him a receipt, or the Milly Dowler moment.
The headline is what people remember, not the nuances.
The clue for all the BBC haters out there, is that as it is notionally independent, and doesn't have the same pressure to sensationalize personal stories.
This means we tend to perceive it as biased, or "soft reporting", when it disagrees with our beliefs or morals.
The point of balance depends on which media you choose to represent it.
Which is your balanced choice?
Bankers bonus was spent x10, I think the pension raid is being spent on 4 or 5 things...
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/emergencies/fire-engulfs-torch-building-in-dubai-marina-1.1460107
Different perceptions? All the Labour "tax stories" look incredibly weak to me when I look at the details.
How it is perceived by the time of the election will probably be the pointer to the winner.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/apr/29/free-tuition-scotland-benefits-wealthiest-students-most-study
Why not reduce that to 12 and require fees for high school? After all, some people alreaday pay for this privately (and still pay in taxes for everyone else). Those who complete high school earn more than those who drop out at 16, why not expect them to pay for this? Or 5, why should any education be provided by the state when it can be privatised?
The Student Loans myth is one of those regular memes in UK politics where the political dogma is completely isolated from the reality. Tuition Fees have not benefited the public finances to any meaningful extent and they may NEVER do.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/student-loans-report-publication/
Selling off the earlier loan book for way below NBV was an odd one too.
Unlike Scotland, there is little evidence in England that the poor have suffered from the introduction of student loans, contrary to what many expected.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jan/30/low-income-students-likely-apply-university-ucas
To simplify, 'Free tuition' in Scotland has disproportionately benefited the middle class as grants for the poor have been cut to pay for it. In England, despite fees, the poor are more likely to now enter higher education than before.
I know which outcome I prefer.
It has also allowed mass Nationalisation of the training costs of entire professions - the most notable being Accountants. Where in the 70s the idea of needing a degree to be an accountant was farcical, today the bulk of professional training is Nationalised.
The same applies, of course to "Apprenticeships". Probably because to the heavily voting older population it means "learning a trade" whereas the reality today is that you become an "Apprentice Office Junior" or a Tax Dodge where your employer decides your an Apprentice for a government pay out.
Tbh If I was 20 years old now I'd probably just go straight for CIMA or ICAEUW or ACCA. Taking on 10 grand of debt wasn't a worry when I started Uni, £40k is something else with no asset against it.
The straw clutching that "fees allow more poor kids to go to University" is a pretty obvious misconception. Correlation is not causation. There's no international linkage between fees for university tuition and participation rates. The growth in the UK is part of a general growth in all countries regardless of funding models of Higher education participation.
The problem in Scotland - slowly being addressed - is that Labour council's have historically horrific education outcomes. The league tables for Glasgow's public schools are appalling. It doesn't matter the funding model when no student at Govan High School left with 3 or more Highers in 2013.
'Free Tuition' is a bit like 'Higher Marginal Tax rates' - the outcomes are often not what might be expected.
In fourth year when the applications they make with their general degree find that the competition is between 1000 applicants per graduate slot compared to 3 or 4 for specialism and science?
Or five years after graduating when it becomes definitively clear that the degree was absolutely worthless for career progression?
Or ten years after graduating when you've worked twice as hard, done professional studies independently at your own expense and now have to start repaying the loans despite never having benefited from it in any way.
As I said, the moral hazard is too detached for the market to make a meaningful impact. The University providing the shitty course isn't going to tell the individual they are doing the wrong course and it won't help them. The Uni will just keep taking the money.
And you still haven't explained why 18 is the magic number to start charging. Why not 16, why not 12, why not 5. Show some logical consistency. Either education should be charged or it should not.
As for your whataboutary - surely when half the population decides not to pursue education is as good a time as any to decide those who wish to pursue it to pay for it? Or would you continue to fund education indefinitely? A lovely idea - but as Scotland demonstrates, the poor pay.
I appreciate the outcomes do not coincide with your prejudices, but you're making yourself look silly.....
What's your logic behind these early epiphanies.
-quality of teaching
-content of course work
-discussion with other students in higher years.....including those who have heard horror stories from the previous year's milk round.....
Its really not that complicated.......
The discussion between years, where it exists, is a potential moment where the moral hazard becomes real. Of course this is tempered by the authority guidance to continue as is and in many cases, having decided through Higher or A Level choices there may not be the option to switch to a course which is meaningful. If you're A Levels are English, History and Art, you aren't getting to switch to Engineering.
Moral Hazard ONLY works as a market force where it bears on the individual. There are far too many ways in which the individual is isolated by both time, peer and authority away from any understanding of the moral hazard they face.
There is no reliable, rational way for the market to dictate good outcomes.
Several of my cohort changed course - clearly our experiences have been very different, you are observing mountains of difficulty, while I saw molehills of brief haggling - almost always resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.
Unless your argument is that paying £9,000/year makes students suddenly indifferent to the quality and likely prospects of their course?
Regarding tuition fees, I think the point is that tertiary education (i.e. university) is the point at which the individual begins to benefit much more than society as a whole. And therefore, the cost burden should begin to move away from the population at large, and towards the specific benificiary.
The issues with it - which are more about implementation - are (1) that part of the whole rationale behind fees was to encourage competition between education providers, and therefore reduce the cost of education. Imperial College London can charge more for a science degree, because it offers a better science degree. And (2) by having some fees paid centrally by subject, you encourage universities to take on many people in those subjects, regardless of their ability to sensibly teach them. An Awful University (Kilburn) starts offering Engineering degree places to people with two Es in Theatre Studies and PE. Even if these people never graduate, it picks up some decent fees for a few year from central government.
I think the bigger problem is where to draw the line. The medical related courses are obviously worthy of a higher status, and students studying self-indulgent courses like English Literature should pay more. But if the government started to differentiate I can imagine the professionally offended kicking off.
What's interesting is that the geography department at my University stopped being the "School of Geography" and became "The Centre for the Environment" as it meant they were entitled to a lot more funding as the focus was on climate change. I suspect they'd argue that what they and their students do is very important, but I'm not sure I'd agree.
There is a side point here: if we dramatically increase our production of medics (to use an analogy...) we will probably simply start exporting them. Do we reclaim tuition fees if people move to the US after graduation?
University provides both aspects, there are studies which are of great benefit to society without being particularly lucrative to the individual, such as Nursing or Teaching, the vast majority of whom may be comfortable but will never be wealthy.
There are studies where the individual may benefit society or may benefit individually. A scientist could provide a breakthrough which is not personally (greatly) beneficial but has a tremendous positive effect on society. Alternatively their education might lead them to create and hold the patent to an incredibly lucrative invention which, while not game-changing for society, makes them very wealthy.
And of course other outcomes could leave individual and society with both or neither.
The choice made by a 17 year old, in most cases, may have nothing to do with the outcome and the market cannot be relied upon (and may well be unable to) force the beneficial outcomes (for individual or society) that you or I may want.
Not to mention those individuals that are individually successful will pay more tax over a lifetime WITHOUT the need for a form of graduate tax (which is what income-threshold repayment loans are) and provide more demand in the economy.
Ultimately, it's still not logical. An 18 year old completing school with A Levels has a similar discrepancy on life chances over a 16 year old leaving school before they sit their GCSEs.
We both agree that there are certain subjects which principally benefit society at large (say medicine) and that there subjects which principally benefit the individual (say business studies), and there are subjects of dubious societal and personal benefits (say media studies).
It makes sense for the state to pay for more of the tuition fees when society benefits, and less when it is the individual that benefits.
Finally: the point about income tax is a fair one, but ignores the fact that (1) certain degrees are not correlated with higher lifetime earnings, and (2) your logic seems slightly unfair to people who earn the money without having extracted the benefits of education from the state.