Today the identity of Jihadi John was revealed, the FCC voted on unpublished Net Neutrality Rules pushed by Obama, trying to do for the internet what he did to the healthcare system, Congress still hasn't approved Homeland Security funding.......
What does CNN go with?
Live coverage of police in Phoenix chasing and capturing two escaped Llamas. CNN couldn't decide if they were llamas or alpacas. No wonder their ratings are so low.
My immediate reaction was to cry - Cuidado Llamas! Las llamas son más grandes que las ranas
How delightful. Congratulations to him and his new husband!
But how will it go down in the Bible belt?
All but the most extreme, whether they agree or not, accept that this horse has left the stable, and eventually it's inevitable. Opposing this and abortion is a vote loser, and they finally accept that Republicans - which is most of the South - have to broaden their appeal and that means policy changes. The objective is to win, not be doctrinally pure.
I presume social services up and down the country will be ensuring that children are not allowed to go on leftie protests. I thought not, this applies to only UKIP.
I don't think the metropolitan elite realise but stunts such as this only boost UKIP support further.
Fox TimB Agree it is an inevitable move, but there is a anger of a socially conservative 3rd party candidate if Jeb does come out for gay marriage and wins the GOP nomination
Its one of the least noticed or talked about fracture lines within the Scottish Labour party and their Westminster counterparts here on PB.com. Over recent months the Scottish Labour party has been talking up a possible coalition with the SNP as it hopes it will help them shore up their core vote in Scotland.
But up until now, its been Ed Balls rather than Ed Miliband who has been far more firm and consistent about ruling out what could prove to be a very toxic Coalition pact with the SNP South of the border. This issue also has huge implications for Ukip in the run up to the next GE, many ex Conservative Ukip switchers may be able to stomach an Ed Miliband Government, or even a Lab/Libdem Coalition in the hope that it might deliver a more right wing Conservative Opposition. But an Ed Miliband Labour minority Government with the SNP at Holyrood wagging its tail, now that is enough to see a few voters return to the Conservative fold come election day.
I remain totally relaxed about the Labour party and the SNP tying themselves up in knots in the media about whether they would go into Coalition together at Westminster officially, or even unofficially on a supply and confidence deal. Especially now that the SNP have hypocritically ruled out working with the Conservatives at Westminster after relying on the Scottish Conservatives 'unofficially' for much of their first term in Office at Holyrood and in the odd council Coalition too.
Fox TimB Agree it is an inevitable move, but there is a anger of a socially conservative 3rd party candidate if Jeb does come out for gay marriage and wins the GOP nomination
The conservatives think Jeb's view on gay marriage is by no means their main problem with him. Common Core drives them nuts and Jeb is a big fan.
Hi @Mortimer. I would definitely agree with you about the fact that Grant Shapps continues to be truly underrated as Conservative Chairman, and in much the same way that George Osborne was underrated as a Conservative strategist and future Chancellor of the Exchequer in the run up to the last GE.
Grant Shapps is truly underrated - best chairman of this administration. A proper communicator on the Major levels of 'in touch with the man in the street'
I would prefer to describe them as shy Tories, at the end of the day the GE result is going to come down to the single issue of who is best placed to manage the UK economy just like it did back in 1992.
The flipside of the Labour Scottish polling is that the Tories are having a rough time in England.
Nothing like Lab is facing "up north" though...
Sure. But an SNP landslide in Scotland erases much of the FPTP-bias towards Labour.
I find it VERY hard to see Miliband getting an overall majority if he loses 30 seats north of Berwick.
As things stand, it's either a NOM Cameron or a NOM Ed GE.
I also wonder if we are starting to see evidence of Shy Kippers. There has been a sustained attack on the party for weeks, now, on TV and in the papers. Yet all of UKIP's memes are selling well (cf today's migration figures). If shy Tories were once such a phenomenon pollsters had to adjust for it, how about shy Farageists?
i am faintly suspicious of UKIP's decline in the polls. This General Election is deliciously indecipherable.
TimB Common Core is an issue for a few libertarian activists, gay marriage is a far bigger issue in the Bible Belt and with evangelicals
12-18 months ago you were right. They don't like gay marriage, but they accept it's going to happen, and they (except some extremists) will no longer actively fight it. There has been a sea change in the attitude of the US public towards gay marriage over the last few years, and most evangelicals accept that.
I live in the buckle of the bible belt, and whether it's my Rotary Club, church, lunch groups, or my favorite couple of bars and restaurants, there is a universal realization that if Republicans continue on the anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, rabid "deport every single illegal immigrant NOW" path, they will lose again.
Common Core is something all conservatives dislike, evangelicals and otherwise. Teachers don't like it, most parents don't like it. Doing something about it would be popular. Opposing gay marriage is a sure fire vote loser.
Even philistines and evangelicals aren't that dumb. They know Republicans have to be more inclusive and diverse, and they are desperate to win.
TimB Amongst most Americans yes there has been a shift amongst social conservatives and evangelicals who make up about 1/3+ of the Republican base, no there has not. Setting nationwide education standards through common care is not an issue which is going to shift votes like gay marriage would. Indeed a recent Iowa poll showed 56% approved of common core, 29% opposed http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2015/02/25/poll-common-core-radioactive-iowans/24023771/
I presume social services up and down the country will be ensuring that children are not allowed to go on leftie protests. I thought not, this applies to only UKIP.
I don't think the metropolitan elite realise but stunts such as this only boost UKIP support further.
They get to hide in the cloak of anonymity. If this was done in public the judge would be humiliated. The requirement of the father to remain anonymous is not for his protection, or the child's protection, it is for the protection of the court.
I dont understand the need for blanket anonymity in these kind of family cases. I could understand if some kind of abuse existed which could stigmatise the child at school. But really?
Secrecy is too convenient and will always lead to abuse of freedom.
TimB Amongst most Americans yes there has been a shift amongst social conservatives and evangelicals who make up about 1/3+ of the Republican base, no there has not. Setting nationwide education standards through common care is not an issue which is going to shift votes like gay marriage would. Indeed a recent Iowa poll showed 56% approved of common core, 29% opposed http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2015/02/25/poll-common-core-radioactive-iowans/24023771/
night
This is a poll among Iowans, and the headline is that Common Core is not radioactive to Iowans. That suggests that this is a view that is headline worthy, contrarian and notable.
If it's so popular in Iowa, which by the way includes much less than 1% of the US population, why does the Iowa governor oppose it?
Meanwhile as the SNP supporters on here and elsewhere seek to mock Danny Alexander's campaign leaflet, his agent will be quietly putting his feet up with a wee dram this weekend and smiling at the chances of the SNP candidate Drew Hendry getting this kind of free publicity highlighting his solid Highland credentials in a national newspaper. Cos you know, Highlanders are all about knowing how to survive the odd harsh winter without electricity while having having a taste for the finer things in life like a good Scottish malt whisky.
Whilst I would be reluctant to bet the spare change in my pocket on a Survation poll the coincidence of the academic research claiming that Farage has a 2% chance and a poll putting him 9% ahead is piquant. With the greatest of respect to the learned professors it does rather show the limitations of modelling.
I wonder if the family of 'jihadi John' are under police protection
Yes, taxpayers have probably been forking out for that for months now. It'll mean someone notices that they have a spare bedroom now, though, so we can save a bit in benefits payments.
Whilst I would be reluctant to bet the spare change in my pocket on a Survation poll the coincidence of the academic research claiming that Farage has a 2% chance and a poll putting him 9% ahead is piquant. With the greatest of respect to the learned professors it does rather show the limitations of modelling.
You cannot utter such heresies. Computer models are infallible, or so the Global Warming brigade keep telling me....
Its one of the least noticed or talked about fracture lines within the Scottish Labour party and their Westminster counterparts here on PB.com. Over recent months the Scottish Labour party has been talking up a possible coalition with the SNP as it hopes it will help them shore up their core vote in Scotland.
But up until now, its been Ed Balls rather than Ed Miliband who has been far more firm and consistent about ruling out what could prove to be a very toxic Coalition pact with the SNP South of the border. This issue also has huge implications for Ukip in the run up to the next GE, many ex Conservative Ukip switchers may be able to stomach an Ed Miliband Government, or even a Lab/Libdem Coalition in the hope that it might deliver a more right wing Conservative Opposition. But an Ed Miliband Labour minority Government with the SNP at Holyrood wagging its tail, now that is enough to see a few voters return to the Conservative fold come election day.
I remain totally relaxed about the Labour party and the SNP tying themselves up in knots in the media about whether they would go into Coalition together at Westminster officially, or even unofficially on a supply and confidence deal. Especially now that the SNP have hypocritically ruled out working with the Conservatives at Westminster after relying on the Scottish Conservatives 'unofficially' for much of their first term in Office at Holyrood and in the odd council Coalition too.
Meanwhile as the SNP supporters on here and elsewhere seek to mock Danny Alexander's campaign leaflet, his agent will be quietly putting his feet up with a wee dram this weekend and smiling at the chances of the SNP candidate Drew Hendry getting this kind of free publicity highlighting his solid Highland credentials in a national newspaper. Cos you know, Highlanders are all about knowing how to survive the odd harsh winter without electricity while having having a taste for the finer things in life like a good Scottish malt whisky.
Free publicity tends to only be a great benefit when it's actually public (which the Daily Mail doesn't count as in Scotland) and it's got a message people will respond to.
Cos you know, Danny is toxic, his party is toxic, he's 29% beyind in the polls and he can't even buy a puff piece on buzzfeed without it having to explain just how badly his doorknocking is going.
Whilst I would be reluctant to bet the spare change in my pocket on a Survation poll the coincidence of the academic research claiming that Farage has a 2% chance and a poll putting him 9% ahead is piquant. With the greatest of respect to the learned professors it does rather show the limitations of modelling.
I have been playing with the figures on electoral calculus with several plausible vote shares. I struggle to get UKIP to any seats at all (implying betting Tory in Clacton would be worthwhile), so I think the model does not deal well with high profile individuals and personal votes.
I also get the LibDems in the high teens, and do get a couple of Tory gains in Scotland, and 40 SNP seats.
In every variation that I have run so far Nick P takes Broxtowe.
Whilst I would be reluctant to bet the spare change in my pocket on a Survation poll the coincidence of the academic research claiming that Farage has a 2% chance and a poll putting him 9% ahead is piquant. With the greatest of respect to the learned professors it does rather show the limitations of modelling.
You cannot utter such heresies. Computer models are infallible, or so the Global Warming brigade keep telling me....
You stick to blind belief based on, er well..... It's much more reliable.
Meanwhile as the SNP supporters on here and elsewhere seek to mock Danny Alexander's campaign leaflet, his agent will be quietly putting his feet up with a wee dram this weekend and smiling at the chances of the SNP candidate Drew Hendry getting this kind of free publicity highlighting his solid Highland credentials in a national newspaper. Cos you know, Highlanders are all about knowing how to survive the odd harsh winter without electricity while having having a taste for the finer things in life like a good Scottish malt whisky.
Free publicity tends to only be a great benefit when it's actually public (which the Daily Mail doesn't count as in Scotland) and it's got a message people will respond to.
Cos you know, Danny is toxic, his party is toxic, he's 29% beyind in the polls and he can't even buy a puff piece on buzzfeed without it having to explain just how badly his doorknocking is going.
In Fitalaffs bubble , he is really ahead and an honorary Tory and will still be brown nosing after GE
Cos you know, Highlanders are all about living without electricity and snaffling down bottles of Scotch.
When I saw the title, I threw up a little in my mouth.
Not good times for SNP Scottish haters like yourself. You realised yet that they are actually popular.
Malc,
Out of interest, how do you see Scotland changing politically in the coming years? My own view is that the Sindy NO was more a battle won than the war as far as the unionist cause is concerned (and a very Pyrrhic victory at that). I think a massive block of Nat MPs in Westminster will eventually create a rupture with England and you'll get what you want in the end. Sadly I believe Scotland now sees England more as a foreign country / culture than as another limb of the same body. If the demos is split the democracy will go the same way in the end.
Whilst I would be reluctant to bet the spare change in my pocket on a Survation poll the coincidence of the academic research claiming that Farage has a 2% chance and a poll putting him 9% ahead is piquant. With the greatest of respect to the learned professors it does rather show the limitations of modelling.
I have been playing with the figures on electoral calculus with several plausible vote shares. I struggle to get UKIP to any seats at all (implying betting Tory in Clacton would be worthwhile), so I think the model does not deal well with high profile individuals and personal votes.
I also get the LibDems in the high teens, and do get a couple of Tory gains in Scotland, and 40 SNP seats.
In every variation that I have run so far Nick P takes Broxtowe.
Electoral calculus works on the basis that changes in vote share are the same across all constituencies.
Thus, if UKIP's vote share is 14%, that means a rise of 11% per seat. Meaning UKIP wins nothing.
No problem that can't be solved by some class war...
@BBCNormanS: Understood Labour tuiton fee cut to be paid for by "better off mums and dads"
This doesn't make any sense. Cutting the fee burden on students does not cost any money. It may save money (if you do not replace it with grant income to institutions) or it may cost the same (if it's a 1:1 replacement of fees with institutional funding.
But it cannot cost more in current year spending.
Even long term only 15% of loan funding is being repaid. But that isn't costing anything short term and over the NPV of the repayment is still below 10% of cost.
I can understand it might appear in the accounts in a non standard way (much like PFI doesn't appear on the National Debt) but that's about accounting, the actual up front funding remains the same whether its a loan funded fee or an institutional grant per student.
Whilst I would be reluctant to bet the spare change in my pocket on a Survation poll the coincidence of the academic research claiming that Farage has a 2% chance and a poll putting him 9% ahead is piquant. With the greatest of respect to the learned professors it does rather show the limitations of modelling.
I have been playing with the figures on electoral calculus with several plausible vote shares. I struggle to get UKIP to any seats at all (implying betting Tory in Clacton would be worthwhile), so I think the model does not deal well with high profile individuals and personal votes.
I also get the LibDems in the high teens, and do get a couple of Tory gains in Scotland, and 40 SNP seats.
In every variation that I have run so far Nick P takes Broxtowe.
tbh I think that they fail to cope with any kind of "lumpiness" or irregularity of distribution which frankly makes me wonder about their utility on a seat by seat basis.
Of course, like universal swing before them, they can still indicate the broad picture and the broad picture is that UKIP will be getting very few seats with only the odd exception. Wouldn't bet on the Tories in Clacton though!
Further to our interesting discussion of Scotlands move to universal free education as a trigger to the Economic and Social progress, I started thinking more on Education as a trigger for development. I came across this article from some research done at the LSE:
This would seem to show that Scotlands (always highly devolved education system - even pre 97) has been overtaken by England, who used to languish in 4th place. I do not think this is due to immigration (in that trends in Wales and NI are both upward) but rather due to stagnation in Scotland.
This seems to imply that if education is a trigger for economic and social development then Scotlands advantage is being eroded continuously.
In this highly devolved area, perhaps Scotland should look at the positive progress in the rUK and learn some lessons. Better together indeed...
I look forward to your thoughts as one of the more coherent SNP posters.
No problem that can't be solved by some class war...
@BBCNormanS: Understood Labour tuiton fee cut to be paid for by "better off mums and dads"
This doesn't make any sense. Cutting the fee burden on students does not cost any money. It may save money (if you do not replace it with grant income to institutions) or it may cost the same (if it's a 1:1 replacement of fees with institutional funding.
But it cannot cost more in current year spending.
Even long term only 15% of loan funding is being repaid. But that isn't costing anything short term and over the NPV of the repayment is still below 10% of cost.
I can understand it might appear in the accounts in a non standard way (much like PFI doesn't appear on the National Debt) but that's about accounting, the actual up front funding remains the same whether its a loan funded fee or an institutional grant per student.
You'll find most of the so called conservatives are taking the Mr Rochester approach and locking their mad policy in the attic.
When it escapes, as it inevitably will their best hope is someone else is in the house when the fire starts.
How delightful. Congratulations to him and his new husband!
But how will it go down in the Bible belt?
All but the most extreme, whether they agree or not, accept that this horse has left the stable, and eventually it's inevitable. Opposing this and abortion is a vote loser, and they finally accept that Republicans - which is most of the South - have to broaden their appeal and that means policy changes. The objective is to win, not be doctrinally pure.
I thought US public opinion, and state level regulation, was swinging against abortion?
Basically SA managed to bat at 20:20 rates for 50 overs. Gayle did something similar the other day. That is the way this game is going and England really are not at the races. I fear they will be out of the WC by Sunday morning.
Whilst I would be reluctant to bet the spare change in my pocket on a Survation poll the coincidence of the academic research claiming that Farage has a 2% chance and a poll putting him 9% ahead is piquant. With the greatest of respect to the learned professors it does rather show the limitations of modelling.
I have been playing with the figures on electoral calculus with several plausible vote shares. I struggle to get UKIP to any seats at all (implying betting Tory in Clacton would be worthwhile), so I think the model does not deal well with high profile individuals and personal votes.
I also get the LibDems in the high teens, and do get a couple of Tory gains in Scotland, and 40 SNP seats.
In every variation that I have run so far Nick P takes Broxtowe.
tbh I think that they fail to cope with any kind of "lumpiness" or irregularity of distribution which frankly makes me wonder about their utility on a seat by seat basis.
Of course, like universal swing before them, they can still indicate the broad picture and the broad picture is that UKIP will be getting very few seats with only the odd exception. Wouldn't bet on the Tories in Clacton though!
Electoral calculus should get the broad picture right, but not individual seats.
@michaelsavage: Chris Leslie comes on @BBCr4today to say he won't discuss how cut to student fees will be funded.
Will Greg Clark explain where he's going to get all the money from when the current scheme goes tits up and lands squarely back in the lap of the taxpayer ?
No problem that can't be solved by some class war...
@BBCNormanS: Understood Labour tuiton fee cut to be paid for by "better off mums and dads"
This doesn't make any sense. Cutting the fee burden on students does not cost any money. It may save money (if you do not replace it with grant income to institutions) or it may cost the same (if it's a 1:1 replacement of fees with institutional funding.
But it cannot cost more in current year spending.
Even long term only 15% of loan funding is being repaid. But that isn't costing anything short term and over the NPV of the repayment is still below 10% of cost.
I can understand it might appear in the accounts in a non standard way (much like PFI doesn't appear on the National Debt) but that's about accounting, the actual up front funding remains the same whether its a loan funded fee or an institutional grant per student.
Nonsense. At the moment Universities get funding of £9K per student per year. If that was cut to £6K they would have lost 1/3 of their income and would require payment from public funds to make up the difference. That would be a very direct and substantial cost to the Treasury.
Of course you might have a debate about how much the debt taken on by the students to offset the current payment is actually worth but that is a different argument. At the moment and in theory it is the future debt repayments of the students that are paying for the Universities and there would be significant budgetary implications of changing that.
Good morning all and 2015 is looking like 1987 for SLAB. 1987 saw the 2nd Thatcher landslide in England and a 50% decimation of Tory seats in Scotland. I don't expect Miliband to win in England, far from it, but SLAB MPs are now wandering around like pheasants dazzled by headlights wondering how they will get out of the way of the oncoming speeding cars.
I wonder if next Wednesday's Ashcroft release will include more Scottish seats. He hasn't dropped any hints yet.
As for Survation's Thanet poll, I saw some comment on Twitter that 40% of the intending UKIP voters didn't vote in 2010. People don't win by attracting non-voters because they don't vote.
Whilst I would be reluctant to bet the spare change in my pocket on a Survation poll the coincidence of the academic research claiming that Farage has a 2% chance and a poll putting him 9% ahead is piquant. With the greatest of respect to the learned professors it does rather show the limitations of modelling.
I have been playing with the figures on electoral calculus with several plausible vote shares. I struggle to get UKIP to any seats at all (implying betting Tory in Clacton would be worthwhile), so I think the model does not deal well with high profile individuals and personal votes.
I also get the LibDems in the high teens, and do get a couple of Tory gains in Scotland, and 40 SNP seats.
In every variation that I have run so far Nick P takes Broxtowe.
tbh I think that they fail to cope with any kind of "lumpiness" or irregularity of distribution which frankly makes me wonder about their utility on a seat by seat basis.
Of course, like universal swing before them, they can still indicate the broad picture and the broad picture is that UKIP will be getting very few seats with only the odd exception. Wouldn't bet on the Tories in Clacton though!
It does seem to have some adjustment for lumpiness in that when running LD and UKIP at the same 11% (looking at a modest LD revival hopefully!) UKIP gets no seats while LDs get 20.
The model seems to take in the 2010 baseline, which for UKIP was pretty poor everywhere including Clacton.
The SNP seat predictor may work better, but for kippers it does not function well. Rest assured that I am not betting on Tories recovering Clacton (I think retirement or a reverse ferret by Carswell would be needed for that), but have stakes on UKIP on 2-3 seats.
All the models and polls seem to struggle with the recent developments so I treat them all with a hefty pinch of salt.
No problem that can't be solved by some class war...
@BBCNormanS: Understood Labour tuiton fee cut to be paid for by "better off mums and dads"
This doesn't make any sense. Cutting the fee burden on students does not cost any money. It may save money (if you do not replace it with grant income to institutions) or it may cost the same (if it's a 1:1 replacement of fees with institutional funding.
But it cannot cost more in current year spending.
Even long term only 15% of loan funding is being repaid. But that isn't costing anything short term and over the NPV of the repayment is still below 10% of cost.
I can understand it might appear in the accounts in a non standard way (much like PFI doesn't appear on the National Debt) but that's about accounting, the actual up front funding remains the same whether its a loan funded fee or an institutional grant per student.
Nonsense. At the moment Universities get funding of £9K per student per year. If that was cut to £6K they would have lost 1/3 of their income and would require payment from public funds to make up the difference. That would be a very direct and substantial cost to the Treasury.
Of course you might have a debate about how much the debt taken on by the students to offset the current payment is actually worth but that is a different argument. At the moment and in theory it is the future debt repayments of the students that are paying for the Universities and there would be significant budgetary implications of changing that.
Except the current and forecast repayment rates are not recovering the fees. There will be a massive shortfall. Since this is public debt only the taxpayer can pick up the tab.
So the current Conservative offer is:
- give your kids an extra £18-24k debt - give them an extra 9% marginal tax when they start work - tax them all over again in 10 years time because the scheme has a massive shortfall.
And that's just the scheme, Do you seriously imagine this won't have a follow effect in the real economy in say kids ability to fund a mortgage or everyone else having to pay more money for to fund higher salaries so graduates can live ?
To put this in context the SNP are more fiscally coherent. Yes it's that bad.
Received a communication from the noble Viscount yesterday. It was printed in Portsmouth. Showing 2 jockeys on horseback and only SNP or LibDem can win in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Was taking a sample last night of the local voters I was in company with. Little sign of Tory voters flocking yellow to the save Thurso. Some were quite scathing about him and said it would be good to see him lose, even if to the SNP.
No problem that can't be solved by some class war...
@BBCNormanS: Understood Labour tuiton fee cut to be paid for by "better off mums and dads"
This doesn't make any sense. Cutting the fee burden on students does not cost any money. It may save money (if you do not replace it with grant income to institutions) or it may cost the same (if it's a 1:1 replacement of fees with institutional funding.
But it cannot cost more
Even long term only 15% of loan funding is being repaid. But that isn't costing anything short term and over the NPV of the repayment is still below 10% of cost.
I can understand it might appear in the accounts in a non standard way (much like PFI doesn't appear on the National Debt) but that's about accounting, the actual up front funding remains the same whether its a loan funded fee or an institutional grant per student.
Nonsense. At the moment Universities get funding of £9K per student per year. If that was cut to £6K they would have lost 1/3 of their income and would require payment from public funds to make up the difference. That would be a very direct and substantial cost to the Treasury.
Of course you might have a debate about how much the debt taken on by the students to offset the current payment is actually worth but that is a different argument. At the moment and in theory it is the future debt repayments of the students that are paying for the Universities and there would be significant budgetary implications of changing that.
Except the current and forecast repayment rates are not recovering the fees. There will be a massive shortfall. Since this is public debt only the taxpayer can pick up the tab.
So the current Conservative offer is:
- give your kids an extra £18-24k debt - give them an extra 9% marginal tax when they start work - tax them all over again in 10 years time because the scheme has a massive shortfall.
And that's just the scheme, Do you seriously imagine this won't have a follow effect in the real economy in say kids ability to fund a mortgage or everyone else having to pay more money for to fund higher salaries so graduates can live ?
To put this in context the SNP are more fiscally coherent. Yes it's that bad.
The fee policy is all rather confused, and not as I would make it; but if the taxpayer is going to make up the syortfall with either of current or Milibands system, it would seem to make little impact if things change, except increasing taxes now on pensions.
As the take up rate for higher education has recovered in England, but dropped in Wales and Scotland, this does not seem to be putting off prospective students.
No problem that can't be solved by some class war...
@BBCNormanS: Understood Labour tuiton fee cut to be paid for by "better off mums and dads"
This doesn't make any sense. Cutting the fee burden on students does not cost any money. It may save money (if you do not replace it with grant income to institutions) or it may cost the same (if it's a 1:1 replacement of fees with institutional funding.
But it cannot cost more in current year spending.
Even long term only 15% of loan funding is being repaid. But that isn't costing anything short term and over the NPV of the repayment is still below 10% of cost.
I can understand it might appear in the accounts in a non standard way (much like PFI doesn't appear on the National Debt) but that's about accounting, the actual up front funding remains the same whether its a loan funded fee or an institutional grant per student.
Nonsense. At the moment Universities get funding of £9K per student per year. If that was cut to £6K they would have lost 1/3 of their income and would require payment from public funds to make up the difference. That would be a very direct and substantial cost to the Treasury.
Of course you might have a debate about how much the debt taken on by the students to offset the current payment is actually worth but that is a different argument. At the moment and in theory it is the future debt repayments of the students that are paying for the Universities and there would be significant budgetary implications of changing that.
It's not nonsense in *cash* terms
In the current scenario, cash leaves the Treasury bank account and is matched by an asset (future repayments from students). There is an argument as to the value of the future repayments.
Under the new scenario, the same amount of cash still leaves the Treasury bank account, but is matched by (a) increased taxes (or strictly speaking reduced tax reliefs) and a smaller asset based on lower future payments from students.
From a balance sheet perspective it's broadly the same (setting aside the future risk), but from a cash perspective the Treasury is better off under Labour.
Whilst I would be reluctant to bet the spare change in my pocket on a Survation poll the coincidence of the academic research claiming that Farage has a 2% chance and a poll putting him 9% ahead is piquant. With the greatest of respect to the learned professors it does rather show the limitations of modelling.
I have been playing with the figures on electoral calculus with several plausible vote shares. I struggle to get UKIP to any seats at all (implying betting Tory in Clacton would be worthwhile), so I think the model does not deal well with high profile individuals and personal votes.
I also get the LibDems in the high teens, and do get a couple of Tory gains in Scotland, and 40 SNP seats.
In every variation that I have run so far Nick P takes Broxtowe.
tbh I think that they fail to cope with any kind of "lumpiness" or irregularity of distribution which frankly makes me wonder about their utility on a seat by seat basis.
Of course, like universal swing before them, they can still indicate the broad picture and the broad picture is that UKIP will be getting very few seats with only the odd exception. Wouldn't bet on the Tories in Clacton though!
It does seem to have some adjustment for lumpiness in that when running LD and UKIP at the same 11% (looking at a modest LD revival hopefully!) UKIP gets no seats while LDs get 20.
Yesterday's London-only poll from YouGov has the LDs trailing UKIP in London, so that LD revival had better start soon!
No problem that can't be solved by some class war...
@BBCNormanS: Understood Labour tuiton fee cut to be paid for by "better off mums and dads"
This doesn't make any sense. Cutting the fee burden on students does not cost any money. the students that are paying for the Universities and there would be significant budgetary implications of changing that.
Except the current and forecast repayment rates are not recovering the fees. There will be a massive shortfall. Since this is public debt only the taxpayer can pick up the tab.
So the current Conservative offer is:
- give your kids an extra £18-24k debt - give them an extra 9% marginal tax when they start work - tax them all over again in 10 years time because the scheme has a massive shortfall.
And that's just the scheme, Do you seriously imagine this won't have a follow effect in the real economy in say kids ability to fund a mortgage or everyone else having to pay more money for to fund higher salaries so graduates can live ?
To put this in context the SNP are more fiscally coherent. Yes it's that bad.
The fee policy is all rather confused, and not as I would make it; but if the taxpayer is going to make up the syortfall with either of current or Milibands system, it would seem to make little impact if things change, except increasing taxes now on pensions.
As the take up rate for higher education has recovered in England, but dropped in Wales and Scotland, this does not seem to be putting off prospective students.
Mr Fox if you think a hole in the £10s of billions is of no consequence so be it. However I disagree.
The current PB Conservative omerta on a screwed up system that is creating problems that will get dumped on the same generation of taxpayers is a wonder to behold. If this had been say an NHS computer system that had gone wrong we'd be deeafened by the cacophony.
Currently we have a chance to stop digging the hole before it gets deeper but fear of admitting failure is the biggest impediment. The system is a lemon and needs to change.
Storming performance by Rachel Reeves last night left Grant floundering.Interesting to see the audience's reaction.Labour's social media campaign going well, posters are so old school, even if they could afford them.Most interesting poll snippet from last week was the revalation that 60% of respondents in one poll wanted a change of government, doesn't bode well for Cameron.
When viewed as businesses how efficient are universities? There must surely be very poorly attended courses that can be deleted. There must be admin overhead that can be made alot more efficient. The concept of tenured professors is very outdated. How much do teaching staff get paid? What is the balance between research and teaching? Basically I am of the view that the whole tertiary education sector is ripe for a serious shake-out in terms of how it is structured, managed and financed. And some bits of it are never going to be viable and should be shut. Far too many people go to uni and emerge with a bit of paper that cost them alot of money but which is worth diddly-squat. I like the 6k/year bit only for STEM subjects idea.
So 6k /year may not be a bad number actually - as long as it is achieved through forcing efficiency gains rather than simply raising tax elesewhere and throwing that at an unreformed university sector.
No problem that can't be solved by some class war...
@BBCNormanS: Understood Labour tuiton fee cut to be paid for by "better off mums and dads"
This doesn't make any sense. Cutting the fee burden on students does not cost any money. It may save money (if you do not replace it with grant income to institutions) or it may cost the same (if it's a 1:1 replacement of fees with institutional funding.
But it cannot cost more in current year spending.
Even long term only 15% of loan funding is being repaid. But that isn't costing anything short term and over the NPV of the repayment is still below 10% of cost.
I can understand it might appear in the accounts in a non standard way (much like PFI doesn't appear on the National Debt) but that's about accounting, the actual up front funding remains the same whether its a loan funded fee or an institutional grant per student.
Nonsense. At the moment Universities get funding of £9K per student per year. If that was cut to £6K they would have lost 1/3 of their income and would require payment from public funds to make up the difference. That would be a very direct and substantial cost to the Treasury.
Of course you might have a debate about how much the debt taken on by the students to offset the current payment is actually worth but that is a different argument. At the moment and in theory it is the future debt repayments of the students that are paying for the Universities and there would be significant budgetary implications of changing that.
It's not nonsense in *cash* terms
In the current scenario, cash leaves the Treasury bank account and is matched by an asset (future repayments from students). There is an argument as to the value of the future repayments.
Under the new scenario, the same amount of cash still leaves the Treasury bank account, but is matched by (a) increased taxes (or strictly speaking reduced tax reliefs) and a smaller asset based on lower future payments from students.
From a balance sheet perspective it's broadly the same (setting aside the future risk), but from a cash perspective the Treasury is better off under Labour.
Basically, taxes are going up under Labour!
The problem is of course the future cash flow streams are already known to be well below forecast.
Let's just hope that the natiional auditors don't get to do a fair value adjustment to the loan book. :-)
Storming performance by Rachel Reeves last night left Grant floundering.Interesting to see the audience's reaction.Labour's social media campaign going well, posters are so old school, even if they could afford them.Most interesting poll snippet from last week was the revalation that 60% of respondents in one poll wanted a change of government, doesn't bode well for Cameron.
Whilst I would be reluctant to bet the spare change in my pocket on a Survation poll the coincidence of the academic research claiming that Farage has a 2% chance and a poll putting him 9% ahead is piquant. With the greatest of respect to the learned professors it does rather show the limitations of modelling.
I have been playing with the figures on electoral calculus with several plausible vote shares. I struggle to get UKIP to any seats at all (implying betting Tory in Clacton would be worthwhile), so I think the model does not deal well with high profile individuals and personal votes.
I also get the LibDems in the high teens, and do get a couple of Tory gains in Scotland, and 40 SNP seats.
In every variation that I have run so far Nick P takes Broxtowe.
tbh I think that they fail to cope with any kind of "lumpiness" or irregularity of distribution which frankly makes me wonder about their utility on a seat by seat basis.
Of course, like universal swing before them, they can still indicate the broad picture and the broad picture is that UKIP will be getting very few seats with only the odd exception. Wouldn't bet on the Tories in Clacton though!
It does seem to have some adjustment for lumpiness in that when running LD and UKIP at the same 11% (looking at a modest LD revival hopefully!) UKIP gets no seats while LDs get 20.
Yesterday's London-only poll from YouGov has the LDs trailing UKIP in London, so that LD revival had better start soon!
Lib Dems would probably be ahead in named Cambridge and Hallam polling. And are still competitive in some Conservative contests which are Lib Dem held, and errm err... that's... ABOUT IT.
So Labour are proposing a tax cut for rich graduates?
The only graduates currently repaying the last £3k of their student loan are those graduates who earn the most over the 25 yr life of the loan. Poor graduates would not repay even the first £6k.
So Labour's policy favours rich graduates as the funding of writing off loans favours the poor.
Except I won't be voting Conservative until they come to their collective senses. Since we have 5 voters in my house and I'm usually GOTV Cameron and Nadhim Zahawi can do their own work with the other 4 :-)
When viewed as businesses how efficient are universities? There must surely be very poorly attended courses that can be deleted. There must be admin overhead that can be made alot more efficient. The concept of tenured professors is very outdated. How much do teaching staff get paid? What is the balance between research and teaching? Basically I am of the view that the whole tertiary education sector is ripe for a serious shake-out in terms of how it is structured, managed and financed. And some bits of it are never going to be viable and should be shut. Far too many people go to uni and emerge with a bit of paper that cost them alot of money but which is worth diddly-squat. I like the 6k/year bit only for STEM subjects idea.
So 6k /year may not be a bad number actually - as long as it is achieved through forcing efficiency gains rather than simply raising tax elesewhere and throwing that at an unreformed university sector.
UKIP's plans make some sense regarding STEM.
Note that no Gov't minister has a STEM degree at present.
When viewed as businesses how efficient are universities? There must surely be very poorly attended courses that can be deleted. There must be admin overhead that can be made alot more efficient. The concept of tenured professors is very outdated. How much do teaching staff get paid? What is the balance between research and teaching? Basically I am of the view that the whole tertiary education sector is ripe for a serious shake-out in terms of how it is structured, managed and financed. And some bits of it are never going to be viable and should be shut. Far too many people go to uni and emerge with a bit of paper that cost them alot of money but which is worth diddly-squat. I like the 6k/year bit only for STEM subjects idea.
So 6k /year may not be a bad number actually - as long as it is achieved through forcing efficiency gains rather than simply raising tax elesewhere and throwing that at an unreformed university sector.
UKIP's plans make some sense regarding STEM.
Note that no Gov't minister has a STEM degree at present.
When viewed as businesses how efficient are universities? There must surely be very poorly attended courses that can be deleted. There must be admin overhead that can be made alot more efficient. The concept of tenured professors is very outdated. How much do teaching staff get paid? What is the balance between research and teaching? Basically I am of the view that the whole tertiary education sector is ripe for a serious shake-out in terms of how it is structured, managed and financed. And some bits of it are never going to be viable and should be shut. Far too many people go to uni and emerge with a bit of paper that cost them alot of money but which is worth diddly-squat. I like the 6k/year bit only for STEM subjects idea.
So 6k /year may not be a bad number actually - as long as it is achieved through forcing efficiency gains rather than simply raising tax elesewhere and throwing that at an unreformed university sector.
As a junior lecturer, my observation is that there's whole swathes of it that are insanely organised. But I'm not sure how much of this is "its an insane method, but its better than all the others".
I do think we need a long chat, as a country, about education. Not just tertiary but across the board. Pay more, but link it to quality and be brutal with the people that aren't up to scratch. If I do my job well, I educate, I create new knowledge and I create jobs. This is demonstrably a good thing and I'm doing it for approximately a third of what some of my contemporaries earn.
As the last YG Poll for February has been published, there has been some small movements.
The average Scottish sub-sample is SNP 42.5 (January 42.3) with SLAB: 25.4 (27.2)
Government Approval is -19.8 (-21.5) and with lower results for the last four days of this month (-19, -18, -16 and -17).
Cons 2010 VI retention is up at 74.9 (73.2) mainly at the expense of UKIP and Green.
Labour has been fairly static, but LD2010 VI retention is 27.9 (26.1) mainly at the expense of Green and some from UKIP.
However, it has become more difficult to correlate the 2010VI results with the daily national result. It remains to be seen whether these 'new' voters are still with us on election day.
Whilst I would be reluctant to bet the spare change in my pocket on a Survation poll the coincidence of the academic research claiming that Farage has a 2% chance and a poll putting him 9% ahead is piquant. With the greatest of respect to the learned professors it does rather show the limitations of modelling.
I have been playing with the figures on electoral calculus with several plausible vote shares. I struggle to get UKIP to any seats at all (implying betting Tory in Clacton would be worthwhile), so I think the model does not deal well with high profile individuals and personal votes.
I also get the LibDems in the high teens, and do get a couple of Tory gains in Scotland, and 40 SNP seats.
In every variation that I have run so far Nick P takes Broxtowe.
tbh I think that they fail to cope with any kind of "lumpiness" or irregularity of distribution which frankly makes me wonder about their utility on a seat by seat basis.
Of course, like universal swing before them, they can still indicate the broad picture and the broad picture is that UKIP will be getting very few seats with only the odd exception. Wouldn't bet on the Tories in Clacton though!
It does seem to have some adjustment for lumpiness in that when running LD and UKIP at the same 11% (looking at a modest LD revival hopefully!) UKIP gets no seats while LDs get 20.
Yesterday's London-only poll from YouGov has the LDs trailing UKIP in London, so that LD revival had better start soon!
Lib Dems would probably be ahead in named Cambridge and Hallam polling. And are still competitive in some Conservative contests which are Lib Dem held, and errm err... that's... ABOUT IT.
During the Eastleigh by-election one of the journos mentioned that a third of LD party members lived in London, so it stands out for me when they're placing behind UKIP there.
So Labour are proposing a tax cut for rich graduates?
The only graduates currently repaying the last £3k of their student loan are those graduates who earn the most over the 25 yr life of the loan. Poor graduates would not repay even the first £6k.
So Labour's policy favours rich graduates as the funding of writing off loans favours the poor.
That would be all those graduates fuelling the brain drain then ? You know the ones who were reported to be leaving the country yesterday. So who is meant to be paying for the fee system ?
Except I won't be voting Conservative until they come to their collective senses. Since we have 5 voters in my house and I'm usually GOTV Cameron and Nadhim Zahawi can do their own work with the other 4 :-)
Will that holier than thou feeling be worth 5 years of Ed and Eck ?
I agree that there is a future fiscal hole as a result of fees, but this would still remain with Milibands proposal ( £6000 in fees plus the same in living expenses on the student loan book still, plus more penalisation of the prudent who save for retirement so a new hole elsewhere). There is no free money!
My solution would be more radical: end government involvement in higher education entirely, and let universities choose whatever fees that they want to charge for whatever courses that they want to run.
I would then encourage via tax breaks the creation of bursaries by industry and employers. Such as in a rare example of a UKIP policy that I agree with: no fees for medical students but a bind in for X years of NHS service afterwards.
The old fraud Vince is certainly doing the rounds this morning
What a disgusting liar he is..a typical Lib Dem though..remembered only in this parliament for four things
Dipping his hands in the blood along with the rest after GE 2010 Lying to some cute girlie "constituents" about what he could do re Murdoch Flogging off the Royal Mail (or as the Bow Group put it selling ten pound notes for a fiver) Launching an embarassingly inept bodged coup against Clegg after the Euro disaster
Isnt it time this old has been was put out of his misery by the electorate?
As for the level of the fees - we offer a reduction for certain years of the course but you would expect the less starred universities to start offering reductions for certain degrees in order to get people through. And you'd hope the better universities would waive some amount of it for the very best students.
Incidentally, the policy is having a far less significant effect on student numbers and intake from poorer students than people were claiming. yes, I get it was hyperbole and standard issue monging of doom, but the actual effect and the actual numbers need to be wheeled out today.
I don't see any harm in charging the person who most benefits from a degree for the cost of providing it. If it isn't worth the cost to the person who most benefits from it, it shouldn't be studied. Early indications are that students believe that their degrees are worth the money.
There are intergenerational unfairnesses, but this isn't one of them.
Alanbrooke's point about whether in fact the graduate will pay for it is a fair one, mind.
So Labour are proposing a tax cut for rich graduates?
The only graduates currently repaying the last £3k of their student loan are those graduates who earn the most over the 25 yr life of the loan. Poor graduates would not repay even the first £6k.
So Labour's policy favours rich graduates as the funding of writing off loans favours the poor.
That would be all those graduates fuelling the brain drain then ? You know the ones who were reported to be leaving the country yesterday. So who is meant to be paying for the fee system ?
When I went abroad for a short while, I still had to pay. And they made the effort to actually get my details and make me pay.
Further to our interesting discussion of Scotlands move to universal free education as a trigger to the Economic and Social progress, I started thinking more on Education as a trigger for development. I came across this article from some research done at the LSE:
This would seem to show that Scotlands (always highly devolved education system - even pre 97) has been overtaken by England, who used to languish in 4th place. I do not think this is due to immigration (in that trends in Wales and NI are both upward) but rather due to stagnation in Scotland.
This seems to imply that if education is a trigger for economic and social development then Scotlands advantage is being eroded continuously.
In this highly devolved area, perhaps Scotland should look at the positive progress in the rUK and learn some lessons. Better together indeed...
I look forward to your thoughts as one of the more coherent SNP posters.
There's been two problems which the SNP have not been able to address. Firstly there is still a majority of Labour run or led councils in Scotland with all the inefficiency and problems that creates. Right now Labour councils are using education as their main political football, cutting teacher numbers then having the Labour MSPs criticise the Scottish Government for something that Labour councils did.
Best example of this was St Joseph's Primary in West Dunbartonshire, closed by a Labour council, the decision referred on technical merit to the Scottish Government, who concluded all the correct procedures had been followed and they could not stop Labour closing the school.
Then Labour (including the local council) scream to the press that the SNP are closing the school. I kid you not. This actually happened.
Secondly is the difficulty transitioning to falling rolls by merging schools - this is politically difficult and becomes one of the first acts needed when the SNP takes over from former Labour councils, as in Dundee. NIMBYism and Localism and of course, as it's Scotland, the Apartheid education system which the SNP will not tackle before Independence.
The SNP are doing the best they can with the cards they are dealt, maintaining such high standards which (until England recently) have never been met elsewhere in the UK, is a reasonable record short of ending Apartheid. But that will be a post-Independence job.
I agree that there is a future fiscal hole as a result of fees, but this would still remain with Milibands proposal ( £6000 in fees plus the same in living expenses on the student loan book still, plus more penalisation of the prudent who save for retirement so a new hole elsewhere). There is no free money!
My solution would be more radical: end government involvement in higher education entirely, and let universities choose whatever fees that they want to charge for whatever courses that they want to run.
I would then encourage via tax breaks the creation of bursaries by industry and employers. Such as in a rare example of a UKIP policy that I agree with: no fees for medical students but a bind in for X years of NHS service afterwards.
The issue is quite simple. You are correct there is no free money so rather than kick a fiscal balck hole down the road we would be safer stopping it now and paying as we go. There is enough money in other budgets to fund the gap. Cut the DFID budget and and tax well off pensioners benefits for a start and we will quickly close the immediate funding gap.
As for your own proposals yes a lot of sense in what you propose, getting more direct involvement by futrure employers is clearly a better way to go.
As an aside Mr Fox a doctor friend of mind gets very irate at female medical students. As a GP he notices that a lot of female doctors want to go part-time leaving the blokes to fill the gap. Miss Brooke senior has 2 friends both about to qualify as doctors and who are both quite open that they want to be GPs and then go part-time. Is that something you see a lot ?
Except I won't be voting Conservative until they come to their collective senses. Since we have 5 voters in my house and I'm usually GOTV Cameron and Nadhim Zahawi can do their own work with the other 4 :-)
Will that holier than thou feeling be worth 5 years of Ed and Eck ?
the Apartheid education system which the SNP will not tackle before Independence.
The SNP are deliberately leaving a bad system in place when they could reform it now? That's shameful.
The SNP are the latest in a long line of cowards too scared of the cardinals - cosying up to them for votes then airbrushing them out when they get caught kiddy fiddling.
Except I won't be voting Conservative until they come to their collective senses. Since we have 5 voters in my house and I'm usually GOTV Cameron and Nadhim Zahawi can do their own work with the other 4 :-)
Will that holier than thou feeling be worth 5 years of Ed and Eck ?
Do you have that response ready on a cut-and-paste somewhere, every time anyone suggests any imperfections in the Blue Team, or even hints at the possibility of voting for someone else, out it comes as regular as clockwork.
So Labour are proposing a tax cut for rich graduates?
The only graduates currently repaying the last £3k of their student loan are those graduates who earn the most over the 25 yr life of the loan. Poor graduates would not repay even the first £6k.
So Labour's policy favours rich graduates as the funding of writing off loans favours the poor.
That would be all those graduates fuelling the brain drain then ? You know the ones who were reported to be leaving the country yesterday. So who is meant to be paying for the fee system ?
When I went abroad for a short while, I still had to pay. And they made the effort to actually get my details and make me pay.
Further to our interesting discussion of Scotlands move to universal free education as a trigger to the Economic and Social progress, I started thinking more on Education as a trigger for development. I came across this article from some research done at the LSE:
This would seem to show that Scotlands (always highly devolved education system - even pre 97) has been overtaken by England, who used to languish in 4th place. I do not think this is due to immigration (in that trends in Wales and NI are both upward) but rather due to stagnation in Scotland.
This seems to imply that if education is a trigger for economic and social development then Scotlands advantage is being eroded continuously.
In this highly devolved area, perhaps Scotland should look at the positive progress in the rUK and learn some lessons. Better together indeed...
I look forward to your thoughts as one of the more coherent SNP posters.
There's been two problems which the SNP have not been able to address. Firstly there is still a majority of Labour run or led councils in Scotland with all the inefficiency and problems that creates. Right now Labour councils are using education as their main political football, cutting teacher numbers then having the Labour MSPs criticise the Scottish Government for something that Labour councils did.
Best example of this was St Joseph's Primary in West Dunbartonshire, closed by a Labour council, the decision referred on technical merit to the Scottish Government, who concluded all the correct procedures had been followed and they could not stop Labour closing the school.
Then Labour (including the local council) scream to the press that the SNP are closing the school. I kid you not. This actually happened.
Secondly is the difficulty transitioning to falling rolls by merging schools - this is politically difficult and becomes one of the first acts needed when the SNP takes over from former Labour councils, as in Dundee. NIMBYism and Localism and of course, as it's Scotland, the Apartheid education system which the SNP will not tackle before Independence.
The SNP are doing the best they can with the cards they are dealt, maintaining such high standards which (until England recently) have never been met elsewhere in the UK, is a reasonable record short of ending Apartheid. But that will be a post-Independence job.
In short, 'its someone else's fault'.
If local councils are the roadblock, why has the SNP not sought to tackle this, than future dreams of what they'll do post independence?
Or do you think the current Westminster government are either big fans of Scottish Labour councils, or are in thrall to them, and wouldn't want to help?
Except I won't be voting Conservative until they come to their collective senses. Since we have 5 voters in my house and I'm usually GOTV Cameron and Nadhim Zahawi can do their own work with the other 4 :-)
Will that holier than thou feeling be worth 5 years of Ed and Eck ?
Do you have that response ready on a cut-and-paste somewhere, every time anyone suggests any imperfections in the Blue Team, or even hints at the possibility of voting for someone else, out it comes as regular as clockwork.
Not keen to write off 5 years just because of a lack of absolutism. I will have to live here through the shitstorm.
Comments
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/jeb2016lgbtfriendly#.ycVwVle5
But how will it go down in the Bible belt?
I don't think the metropolitan elite realise but stunts such as this only boost UKIP support further.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2971228/Judge-orders-Ukip-candidate-Don-t-children-rallies-harm-emotionally.html
But up until now, its been Ed Balls rather than Ed Miliband who has been far more firm and consistent about ruling out what could prove to be a very toxic Coalition pact with the SNP South of the border. This issue also has huge implications for Ukip in the run up to the next GE, many ex Conservative Ukip switchers may be able to stomach an Ed Miliband Government, or even a Lab/Libdem Coalition in the hope that it might deliver a more right wing Conservative Opposition. But an Ed Miliband Labour minority Government with the SNP at Holyrood wagging its tail, now that is enough to see a few voters return to the Conservative fold come election day.
I remain totally relaxed about the Labour party and the SNP tying themselves up in knots in the media about whether they would go into Coalition together at Westminster officially, or even unofficially on a supply and confidence deal. Especially now that the SNP have hypocritically ruled out working with the Conservatives at Westminster after relying on the Scottish Conservatives 'unofficially' for much of their first term in Office at Holyrood and in the odd council Coalition too. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4366783.ece
I live in the buckle of the bible belt, and whether it's my Rotary Club, church, lunch groups, or my favorite couple of bars and restaurants, there is a universal realization that if Republicans continue on the anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, rabid "deport every single illegal immigrant NOW" path, they will lose again.
Common Core is something all conservatives dislike, evangelicals and otherwise. Teachers don't like it, most parents don't like it. Doing something about it would be popular. Opposing gay marriage is a sure fire vote loser.
Even philistines and evangelicals aren't that dumb. They know Republicans have to be more inclusive and diverse, and they are desperate to win.
Looks sound enough.
night
I dont understand the need for blanket anonymity in these kind of family cases. I could understand if some kind of abuse existed which could stigmatise the child at school. But really?
Secrecy is too convenient and will always lead to abuse of freedom.
If it's so popular in Iowa, which by the way includes much less than 1% of the US population, why does the Iowa governor oppose it?
Since when is Iowa part of the bible belt? :-)
They tell us often enough....
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/571081752632008705
http://www.thenational.scot/politics/balls-snp-plans-do-not-matter-but-he-refuses-to-rule-out-post-election-deal.623
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31638588
This is worth a read for anyone who looks at opinion polls.
It'll mean someone notices that they have a spare bedroom now, though, so we can save a bit in benefits payments.
LoL , Tory surge due
No problem that can't be solved by some class war...
@BBCNormanS: Understood Labour tuiton fee cut to be paid for by "better off mums and dads"
Cos you know, Danny is toxic, his party is toxic, he's 29% beyind in the polls and he can't even buy a puff piece on buzzfeed without it having to explain just how badly his doorknocking is going.
I also get the LibDems in the high teens, and do get a couple of Tory gains in Scotland, and 40 SNP seats.
In every variation that I have run so far Nick P takes Broxtowe.
Out of interest, how do you see Scotland changing politically in the coming years? My own view is that the Sindy NO was more a battle won than the war as far as the unionist cause is concerned (and a very Pyrrhic victory at that). I think a massive block of Nat MPs in Westminster will eventually create a rupture with England and you'll get what you want in the end.
Sadly I believe Scotland now sees England more as a foreign country / culture than as another limb of the same body. If the demos is split the democracy will go the same way in the end.
Thus, if UKIP's vote share is 14%, that means a rise of 11% per seat. Meaning UKIP wins nothing.
But it cannot cost more in current year spending.
Even long term only 15% of loan funding is being repaid. But that isn't costing anything short term and over the NPV of the repayment is still below 10% of cost.
I can understand it might appear in the accounts in a non standard way (much like PFI doesn't appear on the National Debt) but that's about accounting, the actual up front funding remains the same whether its a loan funded fee or an institutional grant per student.
Of course, like universal swing before them, they can still indicate the broad picture and the broad picture is that UKIP will be getting very few seats with only the odd exception. Wouldn't bet on the Tories in Clacton though!
Further to our interesting discussion of Scotlands move to universal free education as a trigger to the Economic and Social progress, I started thinking more on Education as a trigger for development. I came across this article from some research done at the LSE:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/education-in-scotland-performance-in-a-devolved-policy-area/
This would seem to show that Scotlands (always highly devolved education system - even pre 97) has been overtaken by England, who used to languish in 4th place. I do not think this is due to immigration (in that trends in Wales and NI are both upward) but rather due to stagnation in Scotland.
This seems to imply that if education is a trigger for economic and social development then Scotlands advantage is being eroded continuously.
In this highly devolved area, perhaps Scotland should look at the positive progress in the rUK and learn some lessons. Better together indeed...
I look forward to your thoughts as one of the more coherent SNP posters.
When it escapes, as it inevitably will their best hope is someone else is in the house when the fire starts.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?324557-16/nigel-farage-remarks-cpac
Of course you might have a debate about how much the debt taken on by the students to offset the current payment is actually worth but that is a different argument. At the moment and in theory it is the future debt repayments of the students that are paying for the Universities and there would be significant budgetary implications of changing that.
I wonder if next Wednesday's Ashcroft release will include more Scottish seats. He hasn't dropped any hints yet.
As for Survation's Thanet poll, I saw some comment on Twitter that 40% of the intending UKIP voters didn't vote in 2010. People don't win by attracting non-voters because they don't vote.
The model seems to take in the 2010 baseline, which for UKIP was pretty poor everywhere including Clacton.
The SNP seat predictor may work better, but for kippers it does not function well. Rest assured that I am not betting on Tories recovering Clacton (I think retirement or a reverse ferret by Carswell would be needed for that), but have stakes on UKIP on 2-3 seats.
All the models and polls seem to struggle with the recent developments so I treat them all with a hefty pinch of salt.
So the current Conservative offer is:
- give your kids an extra £18-24k debt
- give them an extra 9% marginal tax when they start work
- tax them all over again in 10 years time because the scheme has a massive shortfall.
And that's just the scheme, Do you seriously imagine this won't have a follow effect in the real economy in say kids ability to fund a mortgage or everyone else having to pay more money for to fund higher salaries so graduates can live ?
To put this in context the SNP are more fiscally coherent. Yes it's that bad.
As the take up rate for higher education has recovered in England, but dropped in Wales and Scotland, this does not seem to be putting off prospective students.
Bastard evil bankers.....
In the current scenario, cash leaves the Treasury bank account and is matched by an asset (future repayments from students). There is an argument as to the value of the future repayments.
Under the new scenario, the same amount of cash still leaves the Treasury bank account, but is matched by (a) increased taxes (or strictly speaking reduced tax reliefs) and a smaller asset based on lower future payments from students.
From a balance sheet perspective it's broadly the same (setting aside the future risk), but from a cash perspective the Treasury is better off under Labour.
Basically, taxes are going up under Labour!
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9269
So 6k /year may not be a bad number actually - as long as it is achieved through forcing efficiency gains rather than simply raising tax elesewhere and throwing that at an unreformed university sector.
Let's just hope that the natiional auditors don't get to do a fair value adjustment to the loan book. :-)
The only graduates currently repaying the last £3k of their student loan are those graduates who earn the most over the 25 yr life of the loan. Poor graduates would not repay even the first £6k.
So Labour's policy favours rich graduates as the funding of writing off loans favours the poor.
Except I won't be voting Conservative until they come to their collective senses. Since we have 5 voters in my house and I'm usually GOTV Cameron and Nadhim Zahawi can do their own work with the other 4 :-)
Note that no Gov't minister has a STEM degree at present.
I do think we need a long chat, as a country, about education. Not just tertiary but across the board. Pay more, but link it to quality and be brutal with the people that aren't up to scratch. If I do my job well, I educate, I create new knowledge and I create jobs. This is demonstrably a good thing and I'm doing it for approximately a third of what some of my contemporaries earn.
The average Scottish sub-sample is SNP 42.5 (January 42.3) with SLAB: 25.4 (27.2)
Government Approval is -19.8 (-21.5) and with lower results for the last four days of this month (-19, -18, -16 and -17).
Cons 2010 VI retention is up at 74.9 (73.2) mainly at the expense of UKIP and Green.
Labour has been fairly static, but LD2010 VI retention is 27.9 (26.1) mainly at the expense of Green and some from UKIP.
However, it has become more difficult to correlate the 2010VI results with the daily national result. It remains to be seen whether these 'new' voters are still with us on election day.
I agree that there is a future fiscal hole as a result of fees, but this would still remain with Milibands proposal ( £6000 in fees plus the same in living expenses on the student loan book still, plus more penalisation of the prudent who save for retirement so a new hole elsewhere). There is no free money!
My solution would be more radical: end government involvement in higher education entirely, and let universities choose whatever fees that they want to charge for whatever courses that they want to run.
I would then encourage via tax breaks the creation of bursaries by industry and employers. Such as in a rare example of a UKIP policy that I agree with: no fees for medical students but a bind in for X years of NHS service afterwards.
What a disgusting liar he is..a typical Lib Dem though..remembered
only in this parliament for four things
Dipping his hands in the blood along with the rest after GE 2010
Lying to some cute girlie "constituents" about what he could do re Murdoch
Flogging off the Royal Mail (or as the Bow Group put it selling ten pound
notes for a fiver)
Launching an embarassingly inept bodged coup against Clegg after
the Euro disaster
Isnt it time this old has been was put out of his misery by the electorate?
Incidentally, the policy is having a far less significant effect on student numbers and intake from poorer students than people were claiming. yes, I get it was hyperbole and standard issue monging of doom, but the actual effect and the actual numbers need to be wheeled out today.
There are intergenerational unfairnesses, but this isn't one of them.
Alanbrooke's point about whether in fact the graduate will pay for it is a fair one, mind.
Best example of this was St Joseph's Primary in West Dunbartonshire, closed by a Labour council, the decision referred on technical merit to the Scottish Government, who concluded all the correct procedures had been followed and they could not stop Labour closing the school.
Then Labour (including the local council) scream to the press that the SNP are closing the school. I kid you not. This actually happened.
Secondly is the difficulty transitioning to falling rolls by merging schools - this is politically difficult and becomes one of the first acts needed when the SNP takes over from former Labour councils, as in Dundee. NIMBYism and Localism and of course, as it's Scotland, the Apartheid education system which the SNP will not tackle before Independence.
The SNP are doing the best they can with the cards they are dealt, maintaining such high standards which (until England recently) have never been met elsewhere in the UK, is a reasonable record short of ending Apartheid. But that will be a post-Independence job.
I think that's pretty damned close to my prediction of SNP seats. Huzzah!
Diplomacy: alas, the Sultan has eaten his last kebab.
As for your own proposals yes a lot of sense in what you propose, getting more direct involvement by futrure employers is clearly a better way to go.
As an aside Mr Fox a doctor friend of mind gets very irate at female medical students. As a GP he notices that a lot of female doctors want to go part-time leaving the blokes to fill the gap. Miss Brooke senior has 2 friends both about to qualify as doctors and who are both quite open that they want to be GPs and then go part-time. Is that something you see a lot ?
Sickening.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/alex-salmond-pays-tribute-cardinal-1730993
If local councils are the roadblock, why has the SNP not sought to tackle this, than future dreams of what they'll do post independence?
Or do you think the current Westminster government are either big fans of Scottish Labour councils, or are in thrall to them, and wouldn't want to help?