Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After a difficult couple of days Burnham still very strong

SystemSystem Posts: 11,687
edited July 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After a difficult couple of days Burnham still very strong favourite

Latest from Betfair on the LAB leadership betting pic.twitter.com/ANXZDlEf5P

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,288
    first
  • Options
    Oliver_PBOliver_PB Posts: 397
    This government makes Thatcher look moderate.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2015
    I see Venezuela's government has decided to confiscate 30-100% of food and basic products from private firms to stock the subsidised State shops. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article4504218.ece

    That fickle old oil price is rather ruining their socialist paradise. Amazingly, the gov found the money to install 20 000 fingerprint scanners in its shops to prevent food hoarding.
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Plato said:

    I see Venezuela's government has decided to confiscate 30-100% of food and basic products from private firms to stock the subsidised State shops. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article4504218.ece

    That fickle old oil price is rather ruining their socialist paradise. Amazingly, the gov found the money to install 20 000 fingerprint scanners in its shops to prevent food hoarding.

    Just proves the quote about socialism eventually runs out of other peoples money.
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,818
    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    has Bercow completely lost the plot?
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Plato said:

    I see Venezuela's government has decided to confiscate 30-100% of food and basic products from private firms to stock the subsidised State shops. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article4504218.ece

    That fickle old oil price is rather ruining their socialist paradise. Amazingly, the gov found the money to install 20 000 fingerprint scanners in its shops to prevent food hoarding.


    Socialism killed Venezuela, long before the oil price collapsed went down a bit.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898

    Plato said:

    I see Venezuela's government has decided to confiscate 30-100% of food and basic products from private firms to stock the subsidised State shops. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article4504218.ece

    That fickle old oil price is rather ruining their socialist paradise. Amazingly, the gov found the money to install 20 000 fingerprint scanners in its shops to prevent food hoarding.


    Socialism killed Venezuela, long before the oil price collapsed went down a bit.
    Yet people were wondering why the IMF were determined to be paid back by Greece. Venezuela is next in line for Mme. Lagarde and friends.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,864
    Evening all :)

    A couple of random thoughts on the day's news - first, a fascinating report in the Racing Post concerning staff shortages in racing stables. Apparently, there are at 500 and perhaps as many as 1,000 vacancies in yards. The reason seems to be the tightening of restrictions on non-EU immigration which has reduced the flow of labour from places like Pakistan and Brazil where it's easier to find people of small stature weighing 9 stone or less.

    Second, curious to read George Osborne talking about the disposal of land by the public sector. In my view, that's a terrible decision in many cases. Many sensible local authorities are looking at property investment as an alternative income stream. Far from being shocked that the MoD owns 15 golf courses, we should be delighted the Government is getting in the rental income from the golf club itself as well as the companies running the on-site catering.

    Thoughtful Councils know retaining an investment portfolio is a good idea in times of reduced central Government funding whether that be tenanted commercial (ideal) or part commercial part residential. The other side of this is Councils need to be far quicker to make property decisions - having sites sit vacant for years is extraordinarily foolish when they can either be re-used, re-developed or sold on for re-development as required.

    The problem is either competing Council needs and departments (sites for Free Schools, additional sites for residential accommodation for vulnerable adults and/or children) or dithering Councillors who all want to play at being property developers when such decisions should be based on proper professional guidance from the internal property professionals.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    LOL
    The SNP tonight declared themselves the official opposition after Labour failed to oppose the Tory Budget.

    More than a dozen SNP MPs staged a takeover of Labour’s frontbench in the Commons in a fresh challenge to the main Westminster parties.

    After a vote on George Osborne's tax and spending plans, the SNP’s Angus MacNeil called for parliament’s furniture to be rearranged to reflect the nationalists role as the ’actual opposition’.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3169894/Now-official-opposition-SNP-stages-takeover-Labour-benches-Commons-Harman-orders-MPS-not-vote-against-Tory-Budget.html#ixzz3gYT3LwoK
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    Plato said:

    I see Venezuela's government has decided to confiscate 30-100% of food and basic products from private firms to stock the subsidised State shops. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article4504218.ece

    That fickle old oil price is rather ruining their socialist paradise. Amazingly, the gov found the money to install 20 000 fingerprint scanners in its shops to prevent food hoarding.


    Socialism killed Venezuela, long before the oil price collapsed went down a bit.
    Careful you will upset owen who is a real fan of Chavez. Hope he packed enough Andrex to see him through the election when he visted the socialist utopia.

    https://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/venez.jpg?w=900
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited July 2015
    Anecdotally, I've seen quite a few people on Twitter switch from Burnham to Corbyn in the past 24 hours. That could theoretically stop Andy getting in the final two.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)
    Far from being shocked that the MoD owns 15 golf courses, we should be delighted the Government is getting in the rental income from the golf club itself as well as the companies running the on-site catering.

    I don't think these are commercially-run courses that just happen to be on MOD land - rather they are a perk provided for staff and their guests at a cost to the MOD.
    e.g. http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafmarham/stationfacilities/golfclub2.cfm and look at all the other clubs and facilities listed on the same page.

    There will be plenty more where that came from too.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    What particular point of Gov't policy are you getting at here ?
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Is this a reaction to the welfare vote last night?
    Danny565 said:

    Anecdotally, I've seen quite a few people on Twitter switch from Burnham to Corbyn in the past 24 hours. That could theoretically stop Andy getting in the final two.

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898

    has Bercow completely lost the plot?

    Did he ever have one to begin with?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    edited July 2015
    Danny565 said:

    Anecdotally, I've seen quite a few people on Twitter switch from Burnham to Corbyn in the past 24 hours. That could theoretically stop Andy getting in the final two.

    Are we getting to the point where the Labour members and 'friends' might actually elect Corbyn as leader? Prices down as low as 3/1 now, best price 9/2! http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,384

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    With respect, this is an absurd idea. Who would you charge, what would you charge, and how far back would you go? What about someone who graduated in 1978? Would you charge them? How would you find them? How would you make them pay? What if they've moved overseas? Would you differentiate between those who were poor then and wealthy now? Would you charge them on the former or the latter? Or would you charge a flat rate for everyone?

    It's totally unworkable, unenforceable and - if it ever by some miracle ended up with demands for payment landing on peoples doormats - probably open to very heavy challenge in the courts.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,022
    edited July 2015
    Danny565 said:

    Anecdotally, I've seen quite a few people on Twitter switch from Burnham to Corbyn in the past 24 hours. That could theoretically stop Andy getting in the final two.


    Even if some leftwingers switch to Corbyn doubt that means Cooper will overtake Burnham, it simply means it will be tighter between Burnham and Corbyn in round 1, as Cooper also abstained on the welfare bill it will also make little difference on preferences. The next leader will either be Burnham or Corbyn in my view and that helps Burnham in the general as it means he does not owe any favours to the left, while if Corbyn wins Labour have almost no chance anyway
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,022
    edited July 2015
    Plato said:

    LOL

    The SNP tonight declared themselves the official opposition after Labour failed to oppose the Tory Budget.

    More than a dozen SNP MPs staged a takeover of Labour’s frontbench in the Commons in a fresh challenge to the main Westminster parties.

    After a vote on George Osborne's tax and spending plans, the SNP’s Angus MacNeil called for parliament’s furniture to be rearranged to reflect the nationalists role as the ’actual opposition’.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3169894/Now-official-opposition-SNP-stages-takeover-Labour-benches-Commons-Harman-orders-MPS-not-vote-against-Tory-Budget.html#ixzz3gYT3LwoK
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    The LDs also opposed the welfare cuts, as did Lucas and the DUP
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    'Harman's (sensible) veer to the right is going to bolster Corbyn's vote. As incredible as it sounds, he's highly likely to be in the last two. He might even - although I wouldn't bet on it, ho hum - win'

    I disagree that it was a sensible thing for Harman to have done - and if Corbyn were to win - unlikely I think- she would be rightly blamed for the backlash caused that led to such a result.She has shown lack of political insight here.As an Acting Leader she simply lacked the authority for such a decision and has ended up creating difficulties for the new Leader. It might have been a bit different if she was running to be confirmed in the role herself
  • Options
    volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Danny565 said:

    Anecdotally, I've seen quite a few people on Twitter switch from Burnham to Corbyn in the past 24 hours. That could theoretically stop Andy getting in the final two.

    A definite Burnham to Corbyn switch I agree.Henry G Manson advised AB was a falsely priced favourite as well.What would make it really interesting wouls be if Liz Kendall did a strategic retreat and withdrew with a strong recommendation for her supporters to back Yvette Cooper,it then,as you say,will end up in a close contest between Corbyn and Cooper.Corbyn supporters may well indicate only a 1st prefence so the contest may be won and lost on AB's 2nd preferences.Will they go Corbyn or Cooper?

  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    TBH, I think Hattie got it wrong too. She was trying to save the Party from itself - but given the huge gaps between the various leadership camps, she made a messy vote into a big issue.

    We'd be more likely to forget about ferrets in a sack once a leader is elected and put it down to the current vacuum.
    justin124 said:

    'Harman's (sensible) veer to the right is going to bolster Corbyn's vote. As incredible as it sounds, he's highly likely to be in the last two. He might even - although I wouldn't bet on it, ho hum - win'

    I disagree that it was a sensible thing for Harman to have done - and if Corbyn were to win - unlikely I think- she would be rightly blamed for the backlash caused that led to such a result.She has shown lack of political insight here.As an Acting Leader she simply lacked the authority for such a decision and has ended up creating difficulties for the new Leader. It might have been a bit different if she was running to be confirmed in the role herself

  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited July 2015
    Plato said:

    Is this a reaction to the welfare vote last night?

    Danny565 said:

    Anecdotally, I've seen quite a few people on Twitter switch from Burnham to Corbyn in the past 24 hours. That could theoretically stop Andy getting in the final two.

    Yes. Plus Andy made himself look a bit of a wally with his "opposition to this bill starts now" declaration minutes after abstaining. It doesn't exactly make you feel confident he would have a firm, consistent grip on things as leader (and I say that as someone still leaning towards voting for him).
  • Options
    DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Disraeli said:

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
    At the cost of a fair proportion of 16 million votes.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    I have paid my £3 as a supporter and will vote for Cooper as 1st preference.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,022
    edited July 2015

    Danny565 said:

    Anecdotally, I've seen quite a few people on Twitter switch from Burnham to Corbyn in the past 24 hours. That could theoretically stop Andy getting in the final two.

    A definite Burnham to Corbyn switch I agree.Henry G Manson advised AB was a falsely priced favourite as well.What would make it really interesting wouls be if Liz Kendall did a strategic retreat and withdrew with a strong recommendation for her supporters to back Yvette Cooper,it then,as you say,will end up in a close contest between Corbyn and Cooper.Corbyn supporters may well indicate only a 1st prefence so the contest may be won and lost on AB's 2nd preferences.Will they go Corbyn or Cooper?

    That leaked poll had Burnham on 39% Corbyn 33% Cooper 27% Kendall 4% so even if all Kendall's backers voted for Cooper it would still be a Burnham v Corbyn race. I doubt Kendall will back Cooper anyway, especially after the childlessness comments and of course Burnham, unlike Cooper, has said Labour spent too much
  • Options
    Disraeli said:

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
    WRT the professional qualifications.
    If they've been subsidised by the tax payer then the govt should crack on with charging for it.
    Curious how many would have been paid for by provate sector employers.

  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,864
    Sandpit said:


    I don't think these are commercially-run courses that just happen to be on MOD land - rather they are a perk provided for staff and their guests at a cost to the MOD.
    e.g. http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafmarham/stationfacilities/golfclub2.cfm and look at all the other clubs and facilities listed on the same page.

    There will be plenty more where that came from too.

    That of course wouldn't be as good but my point remains that next time the Daily Mail starts ranting about a local authority owning a golf course, the truth is that's probably a shrewd commercial investmenr as is buying up the freehold of a tenanted office block.

  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Disraeli said:

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
    Only the first category should count - the other two were funded in a different way .
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    On another topic ,Cameron should come out and state that there will be no Referendum on independence in the course of this Parliament . In no way should the result of an election for Holyrood on a 50% turnout be allowed to override the ‘once in a generation’ decision of the Scottish people taken clearly on a 85% turnout in Sept 2014. I hope that Labour would support such a statement
  • Options
    DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    justin124 said:



    Only the first category should count - the other two were funded in a different way .

    I don't think ANY of them should count. I provided the data as a point of info to show what sort of figures we would be looking at.

    I favour swingeing taxes on Arsenal supporters instead. :naughty:
  • Options
    welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    Disraeli said:

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
    Why should we stop there? 500 quid an A level? 100 quid an O level? How much for getting an A? Would be a bonkers idea trying to retrospectively charge people for decisions they took decades ago, in many cases, in good faith on the facts at the time trying to better themselves.

    How about retrospective income tax for further lunacy?
  • Options
    JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    rcs1000 said:

    Disraeli said:

    I can't remember the question, but the answer is "More Europe" (natch)
    https://twitter.com/DanHannanMEP/status/623559400972787713

    This is exactly the issue that I have been banging on about for the last two years.

    The Eurozone is going to look more and more like a country. There will be debt mutualisation. There will be a requirement for national budgets to be approved by a "committee of the finance ministers". There will be more and more pooling of sovereignty.

    And that's going to make like very difficult, and quite likely intolerable, for those EU members who are not Eurozone members.

    I think the non Eurozone members of the EU - us, the Swedes, the Danes, a few Eastern European countries - will need to choose between Eurozone and EFTA/EEA. We will choose EFTA/EEA, the Eastern Europeans will choose the Eurozone. I suspect Denmark will choose the Eurozone too, and Sweden will choose EFTA/EEA, but that's another story.
    The starkness of the situation was laid bare when the Eurogroup decided on their own to spend EU-wide funds on the Greek bailout. Even after protests from non-Euro countries they had another meeting of just the Eurogroup to decide to plough ahead as they had the votes on their own to force it through. It was such a done deal, the governments of the UK, Sweden and Denmark were forced to meekly aquiesce rather than face political embarrassment at home, and the media fell for it hook, line and sinker.

    We either need to change EU systems to require a double majority - both Eurozone and non-Eurozone countries - or we need to leave.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited July 2015
    welshowl said:

    Disraeli said:

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
    Why should we stop there? 500 quid an A level? 100 quid an O level? How much for getting an A? Would be a bonkers idea trying to retrospectively charge people for decisions they took decades ago, in many cases, in good faith on the facts at the time trying to better themselves.

    How about retrospective income tax for further lunacy?
    That would surely only arise if there were plans to charge existing and future students for A Levels and GCSE exams taken whilst still at school. Of course, the argument can reasonably be reversed to the effect that given people in fulltime education are not charged for A Levels and GCSEs why should those who continue beyond that point have to pay for degrees! The State either pays for fulltime education or it does not.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,898
    stodge said:

    Sandpit said:


    I don't think these are commercially-run courses that just happen to be on MOD land - rather they are a perk provided for staff and their guests at a cost to the MOD.
    e.g. http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafmarham/stationfacilities/golfclub2.cfm and look at all the other clubs and facilities listed on the same page.

    There will be plenty more where that came from too.

    That of course wouldn't be as good but my point remains that next time the Daily Mail starts ranting about a local authority owning a golf course, the truth is that's probably a shrewd commercial investmenr as is buying up the freehold of a tenanted office block.
    Agreed - if any government entity can use land or property to generate an income then let them do it. Anything that's unnecessarily costing money or unused could be sold off though.
  • Options
    calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    edited July 2015
    Disraeli said:

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
    I think we're at risk of giving the Germans ideas about how to squeeze more from the Greeks !!

    How about a 2% Sunday Times rich list wealth tax:

    " Sunday Times Rich List: Britain's richest double their wealth in 10 years Crisis? What crisis? The 1,000 wealthiest people in the UK are now worth £547bn. "

    That's another £11 Billion - we'll have this deficit sorted by 11pm.
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,818

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    With respect, this is an absurd idea. Who would you charge, what would you charge, and how far back would you go? What about someone who graduated in 1978? Would you charge them? How would you find them? How would you make them pay? What if they've moved overseas? Would you differentiate between those who were poor then and wealthy now? Would you charge them on the former or the latter? Or would you charge a flat rate for everyone?

    It's totally unworkable, unenforceable and - if it ever by some miracle ended up with demands for payment landing on peoples doormats - probably open to very heavy challenge in the courts.
    Why?
    I'd have agreed before, but why is it fair to rule in 2015 to retrospectively increase the cost by 6k for a 3 year degree on those who started in 2013 yet not to retrospectively increase it for those who started in 2012? Or 2002? Or 1992?

    What grounds do those who started sooner have over those who started in 2013 and have seen their costs increase retrospectively?

    For Pulpstar: it's the decision to freeze the repayment threshold.
    Given that the system is actually a capped graduate tax, dropping the threshold in real terms increases the amount paid. By, on average, 6k over the repayment period until the time cap is invoked.

    In essence, it's the first time ever that graduates have had the cost ofbtheir degree retrospectively changed after having started their course. It destroys the entire philosophy of invoking the market (that people may judge the worth of a degree against its cost). It's tantamount to increasing VAT on things you've already bought, or increasing stamp duty on houses and making it retrospective for the past x years of transactions.
  • Options
    welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    justin124 said:

    welshowl said:

    Disraeli said:

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
    Why should we stop there? 500 quid an A level? 100 quid an O level? How much for getting an A? Would be a bonkers idea trying to retrospectively charge people for decisions they took decades ago, in many cases, in good faith on the facts at the time trying to better themselves.

    How about retrospective income tax for further lunacy?
    That would surely only arise if there were plans to charge existing and future students for A Levels and GCSE exams taken whilst still at school. Of course, the argument can reasonably be reversed to the effect that given people in fulltime education are not charged for A Levels and GCSEs why should those who continue beyond that point have to pay for degrees! The State either pays for fulltime education or it does not.
    It's the retrospective nature that's just not on. It's a complete Pandora's box and is, or should be, a cardinal principle not to be broken. Otherwise it's a total zoo, with any decision taken in good faith and legally at the time subject to arbitrary overthrow in the future. How about a £2000 special tax in 2015 on anyone who bought a Morris Marina in 1973?
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    justin124 said:

    On another topic ,Cameron should come out and state that there will be no Referendum on independence in the course of this Parliament . In no way should the result of an election for Holyrood on a 50% turnout be allowed to override the ‘once in a generation’ decision of the Scottish people taken clearly on a 85% turnout in Sept 2014. I hope that Labour would support such a statement

    I wouldn't bank on Labour doing anything sensible at the moment. Obviously I'm not a supporter but they've badly lost the plot and in the age of FB/Twitter and 24 hours News their failings are being grotesquely magnified - albeit falsely by the very vocal left-wing minority. On the leadership I suspect Cooper to win as the least worst option.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,873
    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Anecdotally, I've seen quite a few people on Twitter switch from Burnham to Corbyn in the past 24 hours. That could theoretically stop Andy getting in the final two.

    A definite Burnham to Corbyn switch I agree.Henry G Manson advised AB was a falsely priced favourite as well.What would make it really interesting wouls be if Liz Kendall did a strategic retreat and withdrew with a strong recommendation for her supporters to back Yvette Cooper,it then,as you say,will end up in a close contest between Corbyn and Cooper.Corbyn supporters may well indicate only a 1st prefence so the contest may be won and lost on AB's 2nd preferences.Will they go Corbyn or Cooper?

    That leaked poll had Burnham on 39% Corbyn 33% Cooper 27% Kendall 4% so even if all Kendall's backers voted for Cooper it would still be a Burnham v Corbyn race. I doubt Kendall will back Cooper anyway, especially after the childlessness comments and of course Burnham, unlike Cooper, has said Labour spent too much
    Where was that poll leaked please.

    I am pleased my MP appears to be flogging a dead horse
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited July 2015

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Anecdotally, I've seen quite a few people on Twitter switch from Burnham to Corbyn in the past 24 hours. That could theoretically stop Andy getting in the final two.

    A definite Burnham to Corbyn switch I agree.Henry G Manson advised AB was a falsely priced favourite as well.What would make it really interesting wouls be if Liz Kendall did a strategic retreat and withdrew with a strong recommendation for her supporters to back Yvette Cooper,it then,as you say,will end up in a close contest between Corbyn and Cooper.Corbyn supporters may well indicate only a 1st prefence so the contest may be won and lost on AB's 2nd preferences.Will they go Corbyn or Cooper?

    That leaked poll had Burnham on 39% Corbyn 33% Cooper 27% Kendall 4% so even if all Kendall's backers voted for Cooper it would still be a Burnham v Corbyn race. I doubt Kendall will back Cooper anyway, especially after the childlessness comments and of course Burnham, unlike Cooper, has said Labour spent too much
    Where was that poll leaked please.

    I am pleased my MP appears to be flogging a dead horse
    Don't laugh too soon: Kendall is drawing closer and closer to surpassing Diane Abbott's almighty haul of 20 CLP nominations from the 2010 contest.
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,818
    welshowl said:

    justin124 said:

    welshowl said:

    Disraeli said:

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
    Why should we stop there? 500 quid an A level? 100 quid an O level? How much for getting an A? Would be a bonkers idea trying to retrospectively charge people for decisions they took decades ago, in many cases, in good faith on the facts at the time trying to better themselves.

    How about retrospective income tax for further lunacy?
    That would surely only arise if there were plans to charge existing and future students for A Levels and GCSE exams taken whilst still at school. Of course, the argument can reasonably be reversed to the effect that given people in fulltime education are not charged for A Levels and GCSEs why should those who continue beyond that point have to pay for degrees! The State either pays for fulltime education or it does not.
    It's the retrospective nature that's just not on. It's a complete Pandora's box and is, or should be, a cardinal principle not to be broken. Otherwise it's a total zoo, with any decision taken in good faith and legally at the time subject to arbitrary overthrow in the future. How about a £2000 special tax in 2015 on anyone who bought a Morris Marina in 1973?
    Exactly.
    Yet that is just what Osborne is doing to those who've started degrees under the new system. "Oops, you know those calculations of the cost of a degree and the fact that you won't pay unless you earn 80% of median wages? Yeah, sorry about that; you're paying an extra 6k. No returns."
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    On topic, Liz Kendall looks set to drift beyond 20/1 very shortly.
  • Options
    JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    @Andy_Cooke

    I agree with you. It is very wrong to use the power of law to change the cost of something after you are already committed to paying for it. When done in the private sector, it is called "bait-and-switch".
  • Options
    welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    edited July 2015

    welshowl said:

    justin124 said:

    welshowl said:

    Disraeli said:

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
    Why should we stop there? 500 quid an A level? 100 quid an O level? How much for getting an A? Would be a bonkers idea trying to retrospectively charge people for decisions they took decades ago, in many cases, in good faith on the facts at the time trying to better themselves.

    How about retrospective income tax for further lunacy?
    That would surely only arise if there were plans to charge existing and future students for A Levels and GCSE exams taken whilst still at school. Of course, the argument can reasonably be reversed to the effect that given people in fulltime education are not charged for A Levels and GCSEs why should those who continue beyond that point have to pay for degrees! The State either pays for fulltime education or it does not.
    It's the retrospective nature that's just not on. It's a complete Pandora's box and is, or should be, a cardinal principle not to be broken. Otherwise it's a total zoo, with any decision taken in good faith and legally at the time subject to arbitrary overthrow in the future. How about a £2000 special tax in 2015 on anyone who bought a Morris Marina in 1973?
    Exactly.
    Yet that is just what Osborne is doing to those who've started degrees under the new system. "Oops, you know those calculations of the cost of a degree and the fact that you won't pay unless you earn 80% of median wages? Yeah, sorry about that; you're paying an extra 6k. No returns."
    Well George O is wrong if that's what he's doing ( been away on hold so not keeping up of late).
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388



    Why?
    I'd have agreed before, but why is it fair to rule in 2015 to retrospectively increase the cost by 6k for a 3 year degree on those who started in 2013 yet not to retrospectively increase it for those who started in 2012? Or 2002? Or 1992?

    Hang on... whose fees went up retrospectively?

    I was the last year to get £3,500 fees, paid throughout the length of my course even though new starters would be charged £9,000 the next year. The extent of the retrospectiveness can only be a matter of months for offer holders, deferrals and the like.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    And in the Conservative leadership contest, Boris Johnson is drifting out. He was last matched at 4.40. Not so long ago he was 3.40. Personally I think his price should now be closer to 10.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,873
    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Anecdotally, I've seen quite a few people on Twitter switch from Burnham to Corbyn in the past 24 hours. That could theoretically stop Andy getting in the final two.

    A definite Burnham to Corbyn switch I agree.Henry G Manson advised AB was a falsely priced favourite as well.What would make it really interesting wouls be if Liz Kendall did a strategic retreat and withdrew with a strong recommendation for her supporters to back Yvette Cooper,it then,as you say,will end up in a close contest between Corbyn and Cooper.Corbyn supporters may well indicate only a 1st prefence so the contest may be won and lost on AB's 2nd preferences.Will they go Corbyn or Cooper?

    That leaked poll had Burnham on 39% Corbyn 33% Cooper 27% Kendall 4% so even if all Kendall's backers voted for Cooper it would still be a Burnham v Corbyn race. I doubt Kendall will back Cooper anyway, especially after the childlessness comments and of course Burnham, unlike Cooper, has said Labour spent too much
    Where was that poll leaked please.

    I am pleased my MP appears to be flogging a dead horse
    Don't laugh too soon: Kendall is drawing closer and closer to surpassing Diane Abbott's almighty haul of 20 CLP nominations from the 2010 contest.
    12 out of 213 but Chesterfield still to come.

    Will be interesting if they follow Perkins lead.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    antifrank said:

    On topic, Liz Kendall looks set to drift beyond 20/1 very shortly.

    I cashed in a long while back. She is beginning to look value again. Still a long way to go and always the possibility of events.

    Kendall has attracted a surprisingly strong field of prominent New Labour backers, who must not like the alternatives much.
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,818



    Why?
    I'd have agreed before, but why is it fair to rule in 2015 to retrospectively increase the cost by 6k for a 3 year degree on those who started in 2013 yet not to retrospectively increase it for those who started in 2012? Or 2002? Or 1992?

    Hang on... whose fees went up retrospectively?

    I was the last year to get £3,500 fees, paid throughout the length of my course even though new starters would be charged £9,000 the next year. The extent of the retrospectiveness can only be a matter of months for offer holders, deferrals and the like.
    Those who started in 2013 and 2014.
    So about a million or so?
    It also makes it a far worse deal to all prospective students in the future.
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited July 2015
    By the way, Blair is giving a speech on Labour tomorrow. Major possibility of giving another boost to Corbyn, I expect.

    EDIT: Actually it's not a speech, but a "conversation" with him

    http://www.progressonline.org.uk/event/in-conversation-with-tony-blair/
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    edited July 2015

    antifrank said:

    On topic, Liz Kendall looks set to drift beyond 20/1 very shortly.

    I cashed in a long while back. She is beginning to look value again. Still a long way to go and always the possibility of events.

    Kendall has attracted a surprisingly strong field of prominent New Labour backers, who must not like the alternatives much.
    I wouldn't back her below 50/1. Even then I wouldn't rush.

    To win she needs effectively to be too far ahead on round one to be caught because she isn't going to get many transfer votes.

    I don't see how she can get from here to that point. She will be doing very well now not to finish dead last.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    Anecdotally, I've seen quite a few people on Twitter switch from Burnham to Corbyn in the past 24 hours. That could theoretically stop Andy getting in the final two.

    A definite Burnham to Corbyn switch I agree.Henry G Manson advised AB was a falsely priced favourite as well.What would make it really interesting wouls be if Liz Kendall did a strategic retreat and withdrew with a strong recommendation for her supporters to back Yvette Cooper,it then,as you say,will end up in a close contest between Corbyn and Cooper.Corbyn supporters may well indicate only a 1st prefence so the contest may be won and lost on AB's 2nd preferences.Will they go Corbyn or Cooper?

    That leaked poll had Burnham on 39% Corbyn 33% Cooper 27% Kendall 4% so even if all Kendall's backers voted for Cooper it would still be a Burnham v Corbyn race. I doubt Kendall will back Cooper anyway, especially after the childlessness comments and of course Burnham, unlike Cooper, has said Labour spent too much
    Where was that poll leaked please.

    I am pleased my MP appears to be flogging a dead horse
    Don't laugh too soon: Kendall is drawing closer and closer to surpassing Diane Abbott's almighty haul of 20 CLP nominations from the 2010 contest.
    12 out of 213 but Chesterfield still to come.

    Will be interesting if they follow Perkins lead.
    Or will they still follow Tony Benn?
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Hackers take control of a Jeep Cherokee and crash it into a ditch by gaining access to the entertainment system amid concerns other cars are vulnerable

    Hackers broke into jeep systems from ten miles away while sitting on sofa
    Used a laptop and mobile phone to access the Jeep’ s on-board systems
    They claim more than 470,000 cars made by Fiat Chrysler could be at risk


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3169724/Hackers-control-Jeep-Cherokee-crash-ditch-gaining-access-entertainment-amid-concerns-cars-vulnerable.html#ixzz3gYkKQYes
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Danny565 said:

    By the way, Blair is giving a speech on Labour tomorrow. Major possibility of giving another boost to Corbyn, I expect.

    The people who reflexively hate Tony Blair are already firmly in Jeremy Corbyn's camp. He might have some influence on other voters but since he is unlikely to endorse any one candidate I doubt that he will do much more than lay down a marker in order to say "I told you so" at a later date.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,946
    Oliver_PB said:

    This government makes Thatcher look moderate.

    Indeed -presuming you mean moderate in terms of initial economic success?

  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388



    Why?
    I'd have agreed before, but why is it fair to rule in 2015 to retrospectively increase the cost by 6k for a 3 year degree on those who started in 2013 yet not to retrospectively increase it for those who started in 2012? Or 2002? Or 1992?

    Hang on... whose fees went up retrospectively?

    I was the last year to get £3,500 fees, paid throughout the length of my course even though new starters would be charged £9,000 the next year. The extent of the retrospectiveness can only be a matter of months for offer holders, deferrals and the like.
    Those who started in 2013 and 2014.
    So about a million or so?
    It also makes it a far worse deal to all prospective students in the future.
    I don't understand.

    I hadn't yet started when fees went up to £9,000, and yet I qualified for £3,500 only.

    At most the people who were charged £9,000 had offers, I don't recall about that; but none of them were in the middle of a degree.
  • Options
    welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460



    Why?
    I'd have agreed before, but why is it fair to rule in 2015 to retrospectively increase the cost by 6k for a 3 year degree on those who started in 2013 yet not to retrospectively increase it for those who started in 2012? Or 2002? Or 1992?

    Hang on... whose fees went up retrospectively?

    I was the last year to get £3,500 fees, paid throughout the length of my course even though new starters would be charged £9,000 the next year. The extent of the retrospectiveness can only be a matter of months for offer holders, deferrals and the like.
    Those who started in 2013 and 2014.
    So about a million or so?
    It also makes it a far worse deal to all prospective students in the future.
    The future doesn't matter in the matter of the principle, as today's 15/16/17 year olds can make a decision based on the facts at the time rationally (as I did many moons ago). Tough on them as a cohort, sure, and way tougher than my day ( but there were massively less of us of course) but that's a separate debate.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Pity it is not an offence to discriminate between cohorts in this way. An idea for a manifesto?
  • Options
    calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    justin124 said:

    On another topic ,Cameron should come out and state that there will be no Referendum on independence in the course of this Parliament . In no way should the result of an election for Holyrood on a 50% turnout be allowed to override the ‘once in a generation’ decision of the Scottish people taken clearly on a 85% turnout in Sept 2014. I hope that Labour would support such a statement

    I think Cameron announcing this and Labour endorsing it would propel the SNP support levels well over the 60% mark. Turnout is looking like being in the 65 to 70% area, with SNP supporters more likely to turnout. What Scotland needs to hear from the Tories and Labour is some positive visions for the future - not the SNP BAD mantra which they and the MSM keep banging on about.
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    calum said:

    Disraeli said:

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
    I think we're at risk of giving the Germans ideas about how to squeeze more from the Greeks !!

    How about a 2% Sunday Times rich list wealth tax:

    " Sunday Times Rich List: Britain's richest double their wealth in 10 years Crisis? What crisis? The 1,000 wealthiest people in the UK are now worth £547bn. "

    That's another £11 Billion - we'll have this deficit sorted by 11pm.
    Ahhh.... But you would only ever get away with it once and most of their accountants would see you coming
    It's the young bull old bull joke.
    "Look" said the young bull "all those cows down there let's run down a grab us one or two"
    Wait" said the old bull " let's walk down and get them all"
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    Moses_ said:

    calum said:

    Disraeli said:

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
    I think we're at risk of giving the Germans ideas about how to squeeze more from the Greeks !!

    How about a 2% Sunday Times rich list wealth tax:

    " Sunday Times Rich List: Britain's richest double their wealth in 10 years Crisis? What crisis? The 1,000 wealthiest people in the UK are now worth £547bn. "

    That's another £11 Billion - we'll have this deficit sorted by 11pm.
    Ahhh.... But you would only ever get away with it once and most of their accountants would see you coming
    It's the young bull old bull joke.
    "Look" said the young bull "all those cows down there let's run down a grab us one or two"
    Wait" said the old bull " let's walk down and get them all"
    In all seriousness the evidence suggests that the top 10% are getting poorer, relatively speaking, btut the top 1% wealthier.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Plato said:

    After a vote on George Osborne's tax and spending plans, the SNP’s Angus MacNeil called for parliament’s furniture to be rearranged to reflect the nationalists role as the ’actual opposition’.

    It was Pete Wishart, not Angus MacNeil...

    Top notch reporting :)
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Wow

    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: #Microsoft reports $3.2bn (£2.1bn) quarterly loss due to charges in its Nokia business & weak demand for #Windows operating system
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,035
    justin124 said:

    welshowl said:

    Disraeli said:

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
    Why should we stop there? 500 quid an A level? 100 quid an O level? How much for getting an A? Would be a bonkers idea trying to retrospectively charge people for decisions they took decades ago, in many cases, in good faith on the facts at the time trying to better themselves.

    How about retrospective income tax for further lunacy?
    That would surely only arise if there were plans to charge existing and future students for A Levels and GCSE exams taken whilst still at school. Of course, the argument can reasonably be reversed to the effect that given people in fulltime education are not charged for A Levels and GCSEs why should those who continue beyond that point have to pay for degrees! The State either pays for fulltime education or it does not.
    GCSEs and A-levels are also different as the government mandates we should all at least try to do them, and is in fact increasing the school leaving age to 18 (I think).

    In reality it's people like me who should be the first in line to pay up for their past uni experiences - I left after a couple of years as the course no longer fitted what I could realistically do, although there was also a large smidgen of personal choice in it.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,035
    Scott_P said:

    Wow

    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: #Microsoft reports $3.2bn (£2.1bn) quarterly loss due to charges in its Nokia business & weak demand for #Windows operating system

    Apple is slowly killing the tech world.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited July 2015
    calum said:

    justin124 said:

    On another topic ,Cameron should come out and state that there will be no Referendum on independence in the course of this Parliament . In no way should the result of an election for Holyrood on a 50% turnout be allowed to override the ‘once in a generation’ decision of the Scottish people taken clearly on a 85% turnout in Sept 2014. I hope that Labour would support such a statement

    I think Cameron announcing this and Labour endorsing it would propel the SNP support levels well over the 60% mark. Turnout is looking like being in the 65 to 70% area, with SNP supporters more likely to turnout. What Scotland needs to hear from the Tories and Labour is some positive visions for the future - not the SNP BAD mantra which they and the MSM keep banging on about.
    It would not much matter given that the SNP have 56 out of 59 seats anyway. The worst that could happen is that the SNP would win another 3 seats , but it might convince the Scottish electorate that Westminster will not be bullied and intends to stick firmly to the constitutional arrangements that were confirmed by last year's Referendum result. Indeed I would happily see the other three Westminster parties go so far as to make a joint declaration that there will be no further Referendum on Independence before 2034 - even 20 years is a tad short for a generation. I don't see what the SNP could effectively do about it!
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,818



    Why?
    I'd have agreed before, but why is it fair to rule in 2015 to retrospectively increase the cost by 6k for a 3 year degree on those who started in 2013 yet not to retrospectively increase it for those who started in 2012? Or 2002? Or 1992?

    Hang on... whose fees went up retrospectively?

    I was the last year to get £3,500 fees, paid throughout the length of my course even though new starters would be charged £9,000 the next year. The extent of the retrospectiveness can only be a matter of months for offer holders, deferrals and the like.
    Those who started in 2013 and 2014.
    So about a million or so?
    It also makes it a far worse deal to all prospective students in the future.
    I don't understand.

    I hadn't yet started when fees went up to £9,000, and yet I qualified for £3,500 only.

    At most the people who were charged £9,000 had offers, I don't recall about that; but none of them were in the middle of a degree.
    But they are now, and it's those people - all of those who started after you and are already in their degree - or even have just finished this summer - who will pay more than they were promised.

    It's very skilful politics from Osborne. No-one will listen to any Lib dem criticism, as they're fatally compromised already. The SNP won't raise it as it doesn't affect Scottish students. Labour are too disorganised to mount any challenge. The general public (and thus the media who follow what the public want) won't notice due to the persistence of looking at it as a conventional debt (which it is, of course, certainly not) and the headline numbers won't have changed.

    Yet it makes it a far worse deal for students than the system brought in after the latest hike, and it changes the amount paid by the students.

    See Martin Lewis at MoneySavingExpert: http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2015/01/09/a-deliberate-threat-to-the-government-u-turn-on-the-21000-student-loan-repayment-threshold-i-will-organise-mass-protest/
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Apple is slowly killing the tech world.

    @ReutersBiz: #Apple revenue rises 32.5 percent due to strong iPhone sales: http://t.co/xdgucKpaBu $AAPL http://t.co/c0Pz8KDf2o
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    Scott_P said:

    Wow

    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: #Microsoft reports $3.2bn (£2.1bn) quarterly loss due to charges in its Nokia business & weak demand for #Windows operating system

    The Nokia deal has done Microsoft huge huge damage.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    welshowl said:

    Disraeli said:

    On the subject of decreasing the national debt, one obvious contribution is for those who received degrees prior to tuition fees, prior to the top-up fees of 2004 and prior to the trebling of fees in the last Parliament (ie, everyone who got a degree prior to the current system) to be charged a few grand for it.

    In the past, I'd have opposed such an idea as changing the cost retrospectively is against the philosophy of allowing people to weigh up the value of a degree against it's cost, but as that's obviously no longer a valid philosophy, I trust that the Government will be instituting such.

    Figures for residents of England & Wales. 2011 Census
    7,825,700 Degree (for example BA, BSc), Higher degree (for example MA, PhD, PGCE)
    2,006,440 NVQ Level 4-5, HNC, HND, RSA Higher Diploma, BTEC Higher Level
    6,414,702 Professional qualifications (for example teaching, nursing, accountancy)

    http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/QS502EW/view/2092957703?cols=measures

    Charging that lot a grand each would make about 16 billion.
    Why should we stop there? 500 quid an A level? 100 quid an O level? How much for getting an A? Would be a bonkers idea trying to retrospectively charge people for decisions they took decades ago, in many cases, in good faith on the facts at the time trying to better themselves.

    How about retrospective income tax for further lunacy?
    That would surely only arise if there were plans to charge existing and future students for A Levels and GCSE exams taken whilst still at school. Of course, the argument can reasonably be reversed to the effect that given people in fulltime education are not charged for A Levels and GCSEs why should those who continue beyond that point have to pay for degrees! The State either pays for fulltime education or it does not.
    GCSEs and A-levels are also different as the government mandates we should all at least try to do them, and is in fact increasing the school leaving age to 18 (I think).

    In reality it's people like me who should be the first in line to pay up for their past uni experiences - I left after a couple of years as the course no longer fitted what I could realistically do, although there was also a large smidgen of personal choice in it.
    I am not sure that any pupil actually has to take a public exam.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    What happened?

    Scott_P said:

    Wow

    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: #Microsoft reports $3.2bn (£2.1bn) quarterly loss due to charges in its Nokia business & weak demand for #Windows operating system

    The Nokia deal has done Microsoft huge huge damage.
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,011

    Scott_P said:

    Wow

    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: #Microsoft reports $3.2bn (£2.1bn) quarterly loss due to charges in its Nokia business & weak demand for #Windows operating system

    The Nokia deal has done Microsoft huge huge damage.
    I really didn't understand what they saw in Nokia, or why they thought people might want Microsoft products on their phones.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388



    Why?
    I'd have agreed before, but why is it fair to rule in 2015 to retrospectively increase the cost by 6k for a 3 year degree on those who started in 2013 yet not to retrospectively increase it for those who started in 2012? Or 2002? Or 1992?

    Hang on... whose fees went up retrospectively?

    I was the last year to get £3,500 fees, paid throughout the length of my course even though new starters would be charged £9,000 the next year. The extent of the retrospectiveness can only be a matter of months for offer holders, deferrals and the like.
    Those who started in 2013 and 2014.
    So about a million or so?
    It also makes it a far worse deal to all prospective students in the future.
    I don't understand.

    I hadn't yet started when fees went up to £9,000, and yet I qualified for £3,500 only.

    At most the people who were charged £9,000 had offers, I don't recall about that; but none of them were in the middle of a degree.
    But they are now, and it's those people - all of those who started after you and are already in their degree - or even have just finished this summer - who will pay more than they were promised.

    It's very skilful politics from Osborne. No-one will listen to any Lib dem criticism, as they're fatally compromised already. The SNP won't raise it as it doesn't affect Scottish students. Labour are too disorganised to mount any challenge. The general public (and thus the media who follow what the public want) won't notice due to the persistence of looking at it as a conventional debt (which it is, of course, certainly not) and the headline numbers won't have changed.

    Yet it makes it a far worse deal for students than the system brought in after the latest hike, and it changes the amount paid by the students.

    See Martin Lewis at MoneySavingExpert: http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2015/01/09/a-deliberate-threat-to-the-government-u-turn-on-the-21000-student-loan-repayment-threshold-i-will-organise-mass-protest/
    I do not believe for one moment that more than 1% of the student population based their decision to go to university on the exact repayment terms. They knew they'd pay more, for longer; but not until they earned a good salary. That is all true, whether the barrier is £21,000 or £21,500 before repayments start.

    I would like it uprated, as in the article. But I do not believe some great injustice would be done if it were raised less than expected.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    edited July 2015
    To be fair to Corbyn, he is consistent and you know what you will get - a principled loser.

    Liz is less inconsistent than the other two, but Burnham will say what he thinks the audience wants to hear.

    I still think he'd be a harder opponent for the Tories than Yvette because there would always be a feeling that she made it just because they needed a woman, and one who wouldn't rock the boat.

  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Stephen Tall ‏@stephentall 22m22 minutes ago
    Tell you one thing. Tony Blair wouldn't have passed up the opportunity to defeat the Tories on welfare cuts if he were still Labour leader.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited July 2015
    Plato said:

    What happened?

    Scott_P said:

    Wow

    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: #Microsoft reports $3.2bn (£2.1bn) quarterly loss due to charges in its Nokia business & weak demand for #Windows operating system

    The Nokia deal has done Microsoft huge huge damage.
    Microsoft spent $7.8bn on buying Nokia hoping to compete with Apple in the mobile market and it is just been a disaster from day one. Now they are basically shuttering the public facing side of the Nokia business and making 10,000's unemployed. Bye bye $bn's.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,480
    Plato said:

    What happened?

    Scott_P said:

    Wow

    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: #Microsoft reports $3.2bn (£2.1bn) quarterly loss due to charges in its Nokia business & weak demand for #Windows operating system

    The Nokia deal has done Microsoft huge huge damage.
    The mobile phone world couldn't cope with three different operating systems.

    Especially as windows phones sucked more than a hooker that swallowed a Dyson.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388

    Plato said:

    What happened?

    Scott_P said:

    Wow

    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: #Microsoft reports $3.2bn (£2.1bn) quarterly loss due to charges in its Nokia business & weak demand for #Windows operating system

    The Nokia deal has done Microsoft huge huge damage.
    Microsoft spent $7.8bn on buying Nokia hoping to compete with Apple in the mobile market and it is just been a disaster from day one.
    Ironically Microsoft made its name after its competitors failed to understand the relationship between hardware and software. It decided to emmensely complicate its own business model for little perceivable benefit.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    I think this is the first time in my life that I have either agreed with Al Sharpton or given him cudos for genuine insight into a situation. Here's what he has to say on Trump, by way of none other than James Brown:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/07/21/what-al-sharpton-learned-from-james-brown-that-donald-trump-hasnt/
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Holy TalkTime, I used to love Nokia phones - they were superb for years and years.

    I've a Sony that uses Android, never liked Apple stuff ever since I was forced to use them for work.

    Plato said:

    What happened?

    Scott_P said:

    Wow

    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: #Microsoft reports $3.2bn (£2.1bn) quarterly loss due to charges in its Nokia business & weak demand for #Windows operating system

    The Nokia deal has done Microsoft huge huge damage.
    Microsoft spent $7.8bn on buying Nokia hoping to compete with Apple in the mobile market and it is just been a disaster from day one. Now they are basically shuttering the public facing side of the Nokia business and making 10,000's unemployed.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,035
    Plato said:

    Hackers take control of a Jeep Cherokee and crash it into a ditch by gaining access to the entertainment system amid concerns other cars are vulnerable

    Hackers broke into jeep systems from ten miles away while sitting on sofa
    Used a laptop and mobile phone to access the Jeep’ s on-board systems
    They claim more than 470,000 cars made by Fiat Chrysler could be at risk


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3169724/Hackers-control-Jeep-Cherokee-crash-ditch-gaining-access-entertainment-amid-concerns-cars-vulnerable.html#ixzz3gYkKQYes
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    Nearly twenty years ago, I was told a story about a future-tech division of a major car manufacturer. They were developing a fly-by-wire car, with no physical connections between the driver's controls and the wheels or pedals. By law it was (I'm not sure if it still, is) necessary for there to be physical connections with the steering: e.g. if power steering fails, you can still steer.

    Their system used a solitary data bus for everything in the car. (A data bus is a link between two parts of a computer system that carries data). Everything was fine until they had an incident on their test track. Someone changed a CD in the CD changer, and the data swamped the bus for a few seconds, preventing the steering and braking from working for that time.

    After that, they moved to separate data buses for critical driver-related systems (steering, braking, indicators, lights etc), and another for peripherals. This cost more, but was a fair bit more definable.

    If a car has a two-way data link with the outside world (Wifi or celluar), then they must ensure that *anything* related to the driving of the car is kept firewalled from the safety-critical systems.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Scott_P said:

    Wow

    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: #Microsoft reports $3.2bn (£2.1bn) quarterly loss due to charges in its Nokia business & weak demand for #Windows operating system

    The Nokia deal has done Microsoft huge huge damage.
    I really didn't understand what they saw in Nokia, or why they thought people might want Microsoft products on their phones.
    MS were getting desperate.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    The mobile phone world couldn't cope with three different operating systems.

    Especially as windows phones sucked more than a hooker that swallowed a Dyson.

    Shame that Windows 8 is basically Windows mobile on your desktop then...
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,035

    Plato said:

    What happened?

    Scott_P said:

    Wow

    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: #Microsoft reports $3.2bn (£2.1bn) quarterly loss due to charges in its Nokia business & weak demand for #Windows operating system

    The Nokia deal has done Microsoft huge huge damage.
    The mobile phone world couldn't cope with three different operating systems.

    Especially as windows phones sucked more than a hooker that swallowed a Dyson.
    I have very fond memories of Symbian (RIP), the last proper Nokia operating system. If you ever had a Psion organiser, then Symbian was a direct descendent of the EPOC software on the Psion.
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,818
    edited July 2015


    But they are now, and it's those people - all of those who started after you and are already in their degree - or even have just finished this summer - who will pay more than they were promised.

    It's very skilful politics from Osborne. No-one will listen to any Lib dem criticism, as they're fatally compromised already. The SNP won't raise it as it doesn't affect Scottish students. Labour are too disorganised to mount any challenge. The general public (and thus the media who follow what the public want) won't notice due to the persistence of looking at it as a conventional debt (which it is, of course, certainly not) and the headline numbers won't have changed.

    Yet it makes it a far worse deal for students than the system brought in after the latest hike, and it changes the amount paid by the students.

    See Martin Lewis at MoneySavingExpert: http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2015/01/09/a-deliberate-threat-to-the-government-u-turn-on-the-21000-student-loan-repayment-threshold-i-will-organise-mass-protest/

    I do not believe for one moment that more than 1% of the student population based their decision to go to university on the exact repayment terms. They knew they'd pay more, for longer; but not until they earned a good salary. That is all true, whether the barrier is £21,000 or £21,500 before repayments start.

    I would like it uprated, as in the article. But I do not believe some great injustice would be done if it were raised less than expected.
    Nevertheless, it's as big a difference as that between your deal and the one they took, except applied in retrospect.
    I also know a considerable number of students who did use the calculators provided to help their decision. My eldest daughter chose to wait a year and go under the new regime as it did, in fact, offer her a better deal (those who just looked at the headline numbers, of course, wouldn't do that, but she actually weighed up the pros and cons).
    Osborne fucked that up, though. By retrospectively changing the conditions on her.
  • Options
    DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106

    Scott_P said:

    Wow

    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: #Microsoft reports $3.2bn (£2.1bn) quarterly loss due to charges in its Nokia business & weak demand for #Windows operating system

    Apple is slowly killing the tech world.
    Why do you say that?
    I know that their products are supposed to be top-notch but I don't feel any deep-down attraction for Apple.
    Have you got something tangible to say against them?
  • Options
    Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,818
    edited July 2015
    Duplicate deleted
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited July 2015
    Android devices are more popular in the world than Apple and I believe their dominance is growing. Outside of the west, Apple is no where near as successful as US / Europe.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Android devices are more popular in the world than Apple and I believe their dominance is growing. Outside of the west, Apple is no where near as successful as US / Europe.

    @BBCRoryCJ: Here's the standout figure in Apple Q3 results - China revenue $13.2bn compared to $6.2bn in 2014
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,035
    Scott_P said:

    The mobile phone world couldn't cope with three different operating systems.

    Especially as windows phones sucked more than a hooker that swallowed a Dyson.

    Shame that Windows 8 is basically Windows mobile on your desktop then...
    Feel glad you never had to use Windows CE, their operating system for embedded devices. Early verions were the biggest pile of rubbish ever to shame the operating system world, and should never have been allowed out into the wild.

    It was a joke that it was called Win CE, or 'Wince'.

    Having said that, newer versions are apparently much better, although I refuse to work with it. I want to retain what little is left of my sanity...
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Scott_P said:

    The mobile phone world couldn't cope with three different operating systems.

    Especially as windows phones sucked more than a hooker that swallowed a Dyson.

    Shame that Windows 8 is basically Windows mobile on your desktop then...
    No wonder it sucks then! Android rules.
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    What would happen if the SNP plonked themselves down for the entire day on the opposition front benches instead of just for a single debate and vote. Is there any precedent for such a thing? Could they be forcibly removed and if so by whom?

    The only reason I ask is that I think that day may well be approaching and sooner than we think
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @SamCoatesTimes: At 10pm we will reveal the results of a Times/YouGov Labour leadership poll. Welcome to Ed Miliband's legacy...
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,035
    Disraeli said:

    Scott_P said:

    Wow

    @SkyNewsBreak: Reuters: #Microsoft reports $3.2bn (£2.1bn) quarterly loss due to charges in its Nokia business & weak demand for #Windows operating system

    Apple is slowly killing the tech world.
    Why do you say that?
    I know that their products are supposed to be top-notch but I don't feel any deep-down attraction for Apple.
    Have you got something tangible to say against them?
    Many things. Nothing I can say without their lawyers taking an interest, and I would wish to save OGH the bother.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Scott_P said:

    The mobile phone world couldn't cope with three different operating systems.

    Especially as windows phones sucked more than a hooker that swallowed a Dyson.

    Shame that Windows 8 is basically Windows mobile on your desktop then...
    Feel glad you never had to use Windows CE, their operating system for embedded devices. Early verions were the biggest pile of rubbish ever to shame the operating system world, and should never have been allowed out into the wild.

    It was a joke that it was called Win CE, or 'Wince'.

    Having said that, newer versions are apparently much better, although I refuse to work with it. I want to retain what little is left of my sanity...
    Using a stylus for a touchscreen windows mobile phone in early 2000s was just as pleasing as using the modern metro interface on windows 8 with a mouse.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Nevertheless, it's as big a difference as that between your deal and the one they took, except applied in retrospect.
    I also know a considerable number of students who did use the calculators provided to help their decision. My eldest daughter chose to wait a year and go under the new regime as it did, in fact, offer her a better deal (those who just looked at the headline numbers, of course, wouldn't do that, but she actually weighed up the pros and cons).
    Osborne fucked that up, though. By retrospectively changing the conditions on her.


    I see where you are coming from, but Governments change rules like this all the time.

    Private pensions used to be a good thing, until Gordon Brown came along. Maybe someone would have invested differently for their retirement, had changes not been made.

    Or how about if someone created a business and expects to sell it - then the capital gains tax changes. Perhaps it wouldn't have been worth the risks with the new tax regime.

    There are many examples.
Sign In or Register to comment.