Then propose policies that will be positive for those groups (dare I say, bunches) of people that you mention. The reason the Tories got 38% of the GB vote was because they offered some kind of positive vision of the future and didn't boil the campaign down to "they took our jobs".
I couldn't disagree more with that, so much so that it seems somewhat pointless to even debate, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
If we vote to remain in the EU I wonder how many months it will be before everyone realises the emergency brake/break is worthless and calls for another referendum start growing.
The emergency brake is a bluff call, because the entire premise of the argument is based on Tory lie that EU migrants get a lot in benefits. It's a political dog-whistle with little reflection in reality.
EU migrants don't get a lot of unemployment benefit, but they do get a lot of in-work benefit because we don't have any kind of contributory element to it. Anyone can turn up, say they are self employed and get housing benefits and tax credits as well as child tax credits for an unlimited number of kids. That's why the eastern European countries are so resistant to the idea of locking away in-work benefits for four years, it would stop the flow of British tax payer cash into their countries.
'If we vote to remain in the EU I wonder how many months it will be before everyone realises the emergency brake/break is worthless and calls for another referendum start growing. '
The emergency break is a load of bull and in any case we would not be allowed to apply it without the EU's permission so totally pointless.
Why not just change the payment of benefits to 4 years residency in the UK which would apply to UK & EU nationals.
Better still just Leave so we can actually control immigration and remove the constant strain on public services & housing.If we are short of staff for the NHS we can offer work visas like any other independent country
Very good column by Rafael Behr today (by which I mean, of course, that I agree with his analysis) on Brexit & the Tories.
Most of the cabinet will declare their doubts dispelled. The last bits of legal preparation will be rushed through parliament, and the country will have its say on 23 June. Faced with the choice between a modest plan promoted by a prime minister in full pomp and a litany of complaint by embittered political B-listers, Britain will vote to stay in the EU.
Many senior Tories think that scenario is feasible enough to diminish the appeal of campaigning for Brexit, even if that is where their hearts might tend. “In the end it will come down to jobs and the economy, and it won’t even be close,” says one very Eurosceptic cabinet minister.
Tories are doing a good job at creating wedge issues from refugees and benefits for immigrants. I find it more than a bit distasteful but there you go.
If anyone from Labour is reading this, my counter proposal: higher council tax and stamp duty for foreigners.
The people in Calais are not refugees. If they are then why haven't they registered for refugee status in France?
A whole special morning on R5 today on this. Never once anybody saying well letting all and sundry in might not be a good idea, not once asking the question why haven't they claimed asylum in France & not once asking the question why is it the UK responsibility to help these people in horrific conditions when they are in rich first world not war torn France.
Agree,sky news are has bad ,you would think what a bast*rd Cameron is with they reporting on the migrant children in Calais or in other EU countries ;-)
Sky and the BBC are just out of touch with the majority attitude in the Country. They trawl round Calais with the intention of guilt tripping the Country and yet never ask why they don't apply for asylum in France. Just heard David Cameron asked whether re regrets his 'bunch' remark yesterday and he said he did not as he was highlighting Corbyn's attitude that they should just be allowed to come to the UK. He too said that France is a safe country and they should apply for asylum there and if they have UK connections they will then be able to come to the UK. David Cameron is the only leader with the courage to act in the Country's best interest and is making very difficult decisions. Thankfully he is our PM at this difficult time, Corbyn, Farron et al would be a disaster
The other bbc angle the today got a bit blown out the water...that all the shooting was nasty outsiders in particular British smugglers...then they interviewed a "resident" who said no,it was a turf war & residents were involved & it is the Afghans & Albanians who control the smuggling.
And the French look away. This is and must remain France's problem
Tories are doing a good job at creating wedge issues from refugees and benefits for immigrants. I find it more than a bit distasteful but there you go.
If anyone from Labour is reading this, my counter proposal: higher council tax and stamp duty for foreigners.
The people in Calais are not refugees. If they are then why haven't they registered for refugee status in France?
A whole special morning on R5 today on this. Never once anybody saying well letting all and sundry in might not be a good idea, not once asking the question why haven't they claimed asylum in France & not once asking the question why is it the UK responsibility to help these people in horrific conditions when they are in rich first world not war torn France.
Agree,sky news are has bad ,you would think what a bast*rd Cameron is with they reporting on the migrant children in Calais or in other EU countries ;-)
Sky and the BBC are just out of touch with the majority attitude in the Country. They trawl round Calais with the intention of guilt tripping the Country and yet never ask why they don't apply for asylum in France. Just heard David Cameron asked whether re regrets his 'bunch' remark yesterday and he said he did not as he was highlighting Corbyn's attitude that they should just be allowed to come to the UK. He too said that France is a safe country and they should apply for asylum there and if they have UK connections they will then be able to come to the UK. David Cameron is the only leader with the courage to act in the Country's best interest and is making very difficult decisions. Thankfully he is our PM at this difficult time, Corbyn, Farron et al would be a disaster
The other bbc angle the today got a bit blown out the water...that all the shooting was nasty outsiders in particular British smugglers...then they interviewed a "resident" who said no,it was a turf war & residents were involved & it is the Afghans & Albanians who control the smuggling.
And the French look away. This is and must remain France's problem
What are you talking about it is all that evil Cameron fault & all Britain should be ashamed of ourselves...or so the liberal media guilt trip line goes...
Particularly interesting is the bar-chart giving numbers for whether a given voter had been contacted by each campaign. The number which stands out isn't so much Cruz's (the highest, at 25%), but Rubio's - second highest at 17%. Only 13% had been contacted by the Trump campaign.
Very good column by Rafael Behr today (by which I mean, of course, that I agree with his analysis) on Brexit & the Tories.
Most of the cabinet will declare their doubts dispelled. The last bits of legal preparation will be rushed through parliament, and the country will have its say on 23 June. Faced with the choice between a modest plan promoted by a prime minister in full pomp and a litany of complaint by embittered political B-listers, Britain will vote to stay in the EU.
Many senior Tories think that scenario is feasible enough to diminish the appeal of campaigning for Brexit, even if that is where their hearts might tend. “In the end it will come down to jobs and the economy, and it won’t even be close,” says one very Eurosceptic cabinet minister.
The early poll is key - Downing Street think they have this in the bag right now and don't want it to get away.
"Then came the Cameron-Osborne era, which promised power to MPs with “modernising” credentials: liberal social attitudes and a readiness to be a vassal of the chancellor."
Excellent Guardian piece (two in 10 minutes, must be a record) on tuition fees (though I'd quibble with the conclusion - primary schools are possibly even more important). Complete with comments entirely missing the point, natch.
It’s not fashionable. You won’t see many middle class students protesting about it, and it tends to be overlooked by graduate writers (like me) who tend to assume that the world revolves around our experiences; but if you want to spend ten billion quid addressing inequality in the education system then the target is pretty obvious – don’t give tax breaks to us graduates, pour the cash into secondary schools instead.
Very good column by Rafael Behr today (by which I mean, of course, that I agree with his analysis) on Brexit & the Tories.
Most of the cabinet will declare their doubts dispelled. The last bits of legal preparation will be rushed through parliament, and the country will have its say on 23 June. Faced with the choice between a modest plan promoted by a prime minister in full pomp and a litany of complaint by embittered political B-listers, Britain will vote to stay in the EU.
Many senior Tories think that scenario is feasible enough to diminish the appeal of campaigning for Brexit, even if that is where their hearts might tend. “In the end it will come down to jobs and the economy, and it won’t even be close,” says one very Eurosceptic cabinet minister.
The early poll is key - Downing Street think they have this in the bag right now and don't want it to get away.
"Then came the Cameron-Osborne era, which promised power to MPs with “modernising” credentials: liberal social attitudes and a readiness to be a vassal of the chancellor."
Particularly interesting is the bar-chart giving numbers for whether a given voter had been contacted by each campaign. The number which stands out isn't so much Cruz's (the highest, at 25%), but Rubio's - second highest at 17%. Only 13% had been contacted by the Trump campaign.
Pulpstar has pointed out Cruz odds are a gift as his price may crash if he wins Iowa, which is still possible.
I agree and have bet accordingly.
(Full disclosure: I am rather exposed on Rubio but that's because his odds are way too short given the evidence we have)
Excellent Guardian piece (two in 10 minutes, must be a record) on tuition fees (though I'd quibble with the conclusion - primary schools are possibly even more important). Complete with comments entirely missing the point, natch.
It’s not fashionable. You won’t see many middle class students protesting about it, and it tends to be overlooked by graduate writers (like me) who tend to assume that the world revolves around our experiences; but if you want to spend ten billion quid addressing inequality in the education system then the target is pretty obvious – don’t give tax breaks to us graduates, pour the cash into secondary schools instead.
It's not just graduates who pay tuition fees. You pay them regardless of whether you graduate and no matter what course you graduate from - which disproportionately harms the poor.
There is pretty much no good argument why university education should not be paid out of general taxation.
Jeremy: Another good week then Seumas Shameless: Yes. Red doors in Middlesbrough, red wristbands in Cardiff. We proved that those red Tories, Blair Brown and Darling collected no tax at all from Google. Overall a really good bunch of gripes. Now let us watch the cut through with Ipsos Mori.
The people in Calais are not refugees. If they are then why haven't they registered for refugee status in France?
A whole special morning on R5 today on this. Never once anybody saying well letting all and sundry in might not be a good idea, not once asking the question why haven't they claimed asylum in France & not once asking the question why is it the UK responsibility to help these people in horrific conditions when they are in rich first world not war torn France.
Agree,sky news are has bad ,you would think what a bast*rd Cameron is with they reporting on the migrant children in Calais or in other EU countries ;-)
Sky and the BBC are just out of touch with the majority attitude in the Country. They trawl round Calais with the intention of guilt tripping the Country and yet never ask why they don't apply for asylum in France. Just heard David Cameron asked whether re regrets his 'bunch' remark yesterday and he said he did not as he was highlighting Corbyn's attitude that they should just be allowed to come to the UK. He too said that France is a safe country and they should apply for asylum there and if they have UK connections they will then be able to come to the UK. David Cameron is the only leader with the courage to act in the Country's best interest and is making very difficult decisions. Thankfully he is our PM at this difficult time, Corbyn, Farron et al would be a disaster
The other bbc angle the today got a bit blown out the water...that all the shooting was nasty outsiders in particular British smugglers...then they interviewed a "resident" who said no,it was a turf war & residents were involved & it is the Afghans & Albanians who control the smuggling.
And the French look away. This is and must remain France's problem
What are you talking about it is all that evil Cameron fault & all Britain should be ashamed of ourselves...or so the liberal media guilt trip line goes...
Absolutely Sky and BBC's take on the subject. Listening to the media these days they are so detached from the Country and it also demonstrates the London centric nature of the journalists and presenters most of whom show limited knowledge of the subjects with selective reporting. Also Paper Reviewers are generally just ill informed.
Then propose policies that will be positive for those groups (dare I say, bunches) of people that you mention. The reason the Tories got 38% of the GB vote was because they offered some kind of positive vision of the future and didn't boil the campaign down to "they took our jobs".
I couldn't disagree more with that, so much so that it seems somewhat pointless to even debate, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Obviously. I think you have fallen into the Margaret Beckett trap of thinking that the voters were duped. They weren't.
Very good column by Rafael Behr today (by which I mean, of course, that I agree with his analysis) on Brexit & the Tories.
Most of the cabinet will declare their doubts dispelled. The last bits of legal preparation will be rushed through parliament, and the country will have its say on 23 June. Faced with the choice between a modest plan promoted by a prime minister in full pomp and a litany of complaint by embittered political B-listers, Britain will vote to stay in the EU.
Many senior Tories think that scenario is feasible enough to diminish the appeal of campaigning for Brexit, even if that is where their hearts might tend. “In the end it will come down to jobs and the economy, and it won’t even be close,” says one very Eurosceptic cabinet minister.
The early poll is key - Downing Street think they have this in the bag right now and don't want it to get away.
"Then came the Cameron-Osborne era, which promised power to MPs with “modernising” credentials: liberal social attitudes and a readiness to be a vassal of the chancellor."
Ain't that the truth.
For some of us that's a good thing.
You think being a vassal of George Osborne is a good thing?
Solid stuff. There’s just one teeny tiny problem. The evidence shows that if you want to invest ten billion reducing inequality, the university system is about the worst place you can possibly put it. In fact it’s such a bad idea that it could have the exact opposite effect.
Excellent Guardian piece (two in 10 minutes, must be a record) on tuition fees (though I'd quibble with the conclusion - primary schools are possibly even more important). Complete with comments entirely missing the point, natch.
It’s not fashionable. You won’t see many middle class students protesting about it, and it tends to be overlooked by graduate writers (like me) who tend to assume that the world revolves around our experiences; but if you want to spend ten billion quid addressing inequality in the education system then the target is pretty obvious – don’t give tax breaks to us graduates, pour the cash into secondary schools instead.
Excellent Guardian piece (two in 10 minutes, must be a record) on tuition fees (though I'd quibble with the conclusion - primary schools are possibly even more important). Complete with comments entirely missing the point, natch.
It’s not fashionable. You won’t see many middle class students protesting about it, and it tends to be overlooked by graduate writers (like me) who tend to assume that the world revolves around our experiences; but if you want to spend ten billion quid addressing inequality in the education system then the target is pretty obvious – don’t give tax breaks to us graduates, pour the cash into secondary schools instead.
It's not just graduates who pay tuition fees. You pay them regardless of whether you graduate and no matter what course you graduate from - which disproportionately harms the poor.
There is pretty much no good argument why university education should not be paid out of general taxation.
No, of course there's no possible argument for suggesting people might pay for something that will principally benefit themselves.
Always hard for the 3rd party to get media traction, for a party in 4th place seems impossible.
Farron needs to find a bandwagon sharpish.
Not the one he jumped on today,we should take thousands of migrant children from other EU countries .
All politicians are prone to jumping on bandwagons – for the Lib Dems they need to formulate their own wagon, even if it requires a fundamental shift in their present position.
On the migrant children,farron could easily have gone along with the governments position which I would had more respect for but I believe he's letting his religious beliefs get in the way on this.
Jeremy: Another good week then Seumas Shameless: Yes. Red doors in Middlesbrough, red wristbands in Cardiff. We proved that those red Tories, Blair Brown and Darling collected no tax at all from Google. Overall a really good bunch of gripes. Now let us watch the cut through with Ipsos Mori.
Lloyds Banking Group Share Offer: Message from the Chancellor
Thank you for registering for the Lloyds Banking Group share offer that we've committed to. I value the fact that you are interested in taking part, so I wanted personally to let you know about some important news today.
I want us to create a share owning democracy in Britain. The Lloyds Banking Group share offer will help build that by giving the general public the chance to have a greater stake in our economy, and it will encourage long-term share ownership. So it will go ahead.
It is also my responsibility to ensure economic security. With the turbulent conditions we see in financial markets, I hope you agree with me that now is not the right time for that share offer.
So I've announced today that we will wait for those financial markets to settle down before going ahead. We'll keep you informed of developments.
"Absolutely Sky and BBC's take on the subject. Listening to the media these days they are so detached from the Country and it also demonstrates the London centric nature of the journalists and presenters most of whom show limited knowledge of the subjects with selective reporting. Also Paper Reviewers are generally just ill informed. "
Editorial objectivity has gone out of the window. Ditto scrutiny. Many modern mainstream journalists see themselves as opinion formers, opinion swayers, it is all about them.
Once the 'bunch' affair is over they'll be on to the next short term outrage bus event that they can grandstand on.
Particularly interesting is the bar-chart giving numbers for whether a given voter had been contacted by each campaign. The number which stands out isn't so much Cruz's (the highest, at 25%), but Rubio's - second highest at 17%. Only 13% had been contacted by the Trump campaign.
Yes.
I wonder what/if difference it makes. Difficult to see the result not going to Cruz/Trump with the other second. Does it therefore make so much difference if Rubio got 11% or 17%? Could he possibly then take second in NH?
Excellent Guardian piece (two in 10 minutes, must be a record) on tuition fees (though I'd quibble with the conclusion - primary schools are possibly even more important). Complete with comments entirely missing the point, natch.
It’s not fashionable. You won’t see many middle class students protesting about it, and it tends to be overlooked by graduate writers (like me) who tend to assume that the world revolves around our experiences; but if you want to spend ten billion quid addressing inequality in the education system then the target is pretty obvious – don’t give tax breaks to us graduates, pour the cash into secondary schools instead.
It's not just graduates who pay tuition fees. You pay them regardless of whether you graduate and no matter what course you graduate from - which disproportionately harms the poor.
There is pretty much no good argument why university education should not be paid out of general taxation.
It was Labour wot introduced Tuition Fees! In 1998!
If we vote to remain in the EU I wonder how many months it will be before everyone realises the emergency brake/break is worthless and calls for another referendum start growing.
The emergency brake is a bluff call, because the entire premise of the argument is based on Tory lie that EU migrants get a lot in benefits. It's a political dog-whistle with little reflection in reality.
EU migrants don't get a lot of unemployment benefit, but they do get a lot of in-work benefit because we don't have any kind of contributory element to it. Anyone can turn up, say they are self employed and get housing benefits and tax credits as well as child tax credits for an unlimited number of kids. That's why the eastern European countries are so resistant to the idea of locking away in-work benefits for four years, it would stop the flow of British tax payer cash into their countries.
Romanian big issue sellers...
Among other scammers. Our benefits system wasn't built for this level of dishonesty. It was made in the 50s when people were expected to act respectably, that is not the case today. We have enough benefit cheats of our own without adding a million EU ones who make dodgy claims for in work benefits.
I wonder what/if difference it makes. Difficult to see the result not going to Cruz/Trump with the other second. Does it therefore make so much difference if Rubio got 11% or 17%? Could he possibly then take second in NH?
That's what he'll be hoping - do better than expected in IA, hopefully with Cruz doing less well than expected. Get a bit of momentum, come second in NH, get more momentum as the others drop out.
It makes sense as a strategy, which of course isn't the same as saying it will work. But we mustn't underestimate the uncertainty in these early contests.
Particularly interesting is the bar-chart giving numbers for whether a given voter had been contacted by each campaign. The number which stands out isn't so much Cruz's (the highest, at 25%), but Rubio's - second highest at 17%. Only 13% had been contacted by the Trump campaign.
Pulpstar has pointed out Cruz odds are a gift as his price may crash if he wins Iowa, which is still possible.
I agree and have bet accordingly.
(Full disclosure: I am rather exposed on Rubio but that's because his odds are way too short given the evidence we have)
More than possible; I'd say he was probable to win Iowa. That said, *will* his odds 'crash' if he wins a state where he's already a small lead? Narrow, yes - crash, not so sure. We'd really need to see his figures improve in NH and the other early states for a serious movement, I'd have thought.
Then propose policies that will be positive for those groups (dare I say, bunches) of people that you mention. The reason the Tories got 38% of the GB vote was because they offered some kind of positive vision of the future and didn't boil the campaign down to "they took our jobs".
I couldn't disagree more with that, so much so that it seems somewhat pointless to even debate, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Obviously. I think you have fallen into the Margaret Beckett trap of thinking that the voters were duped. They weren't.
These were the Conservatives government's legislative priorities since the election: privatise Royal Mail, cut support for the poorest at University, transfer the license fee to the over-75s to the BBC cutting to their budget, cut Corporation Tax and cut tax credits. Show me where they were in the Conservative manifesto: I read it, it wasn't there. The cabinet's response to justify most of this to the public was weeks of complete radio silence.
There are multiple reasons the Conservatives won, but the Conservatives have never been forthright about their fundamental belief to dramatically cut the state and taxes. They never even made the argument, presumably as they didn't think they could win. Instead, it's always been obfuscated in one way or another. They talk of being deficit hawks - while introducing tax cuts and pension increases. The intention is eternal austerity, which is what they believe, a minimal state. The Conservatives are fundamentally changing the role of the state (and the tax system!) without even trying to make the case for it.
Labour needs to learn from this. There was a lot of things wrong with Labour under Blair, but he certainly understood the cynical way the Labour party needed to operate to succeed electorally.
"Absolutely Sky and BBC's take on the subject. Listening to the media these days they are so detached from the Country and it also demonstrates the London centric nature of the journalists and presenters most of whom show limited knowledge of the subjects with selective reporting. Also Paper Reviewers are generally just ill informed. "
Editorial objectivity has gone out of the window. Ditto scrutiny. Many modern mainstream journalists see themselves as opinion formers, opinion swayers, it is all about them.
Once the 'bunch' affair is over they'll be on to the next short term outrage bus event that they can grandstand on.
The thing is, people are starting to notice.
This proberly happened in America,that's why we have a Trump on the card and doing well.
Excellent Guardian piece (two in 10 minutes, must be a record) on tuition fees (though I'd quibble with the conclusion - primary schools are possibly even more important). Complete with comments entirely missing the point, natch.
It’s not fashionable. You won’t see many middle class students protesting about it, and it tends to be overlooked by graduate writers (like me) who tend to assume that the world revolves around our experiences; but if you want to spend ten billion quid addressing inequality in the education system then the target is pretty obvious – don’t give tax breaks to us graduates, pour the cash into secondary schools instead.
It's not just graduates who pay tuition fees. You pay them regardless of whether you graduate and no matter what course you graduate from - which disproportionately harms the poor.
There is pretty much no good argument why university education should not be paid out of general taxation.
It was Labour wot introduced Tuition Fees! In 1998!
Yes, one of many terrible Labour policies under Blair that paved the way to the current Conservative government.
Solid stuff. There’s just one teeny tiny problem. The evidence shows that if you want to invest ten billion reducing inequality, the university system is about the worst place you can possibly put it. In fact it’s such a bad idea that it could have the exact opposite effect.
Excellent Guardian piece (two in 10 minutes, must be a record) on tuition fees (though I'd quibble with the conclusion - primary schools are possibly even more important). Complete with comments entirely missing the point, natch.
It’s not fashionable. You won’t see many middle class students protesting about it, and it tends to be overlooked by graduate writers (like me) who tend to assume that the world revolves around our experiences; but if you want to spend ten billion quid addressing inequality in the education system then the target is pretty obvious – don’t give tax breaks to us graduates, pour the cash into secondary schools instead.
If you look at the data, there's actually a very limited effect of adding money to secondary schools. Bigger improvements can be made by changes in culture within schools and focus on a few key areas.
Then propose policies that will be positive for those groups (dare I say, bunches) of people that you mention. The reason the Tories got 38% of the GB vote was because they offered some kind of positive vision of the future and didn't boil the campaign down to "they took our jobs".
I couldn't disagree more with that, so much so that it seems somewhat pointless to even debate, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Obviously. I think you have fallen into the Margaret Beckett trap of thinking that the voters were duped. They weren't.
These were the Conservatives government's legislative priorities since the election: privatise Royal Mail, cut support for the poorest at University, transfer the license fee to the over-75s to the BBC cutting to their budget, cut Corporation Tax and cut tax credits. Show me where they were in the Conservative manifesto: I read it, it wasn't there.
There are multiple reasons the Conservatives won, but the Conservatives have never been forthright about their fundamental belief to dramatically cut the state and taxes. They never even made the argument, presumably as they didn't think they could win. Instead, it's always been obfuscated in one way or another. They talk of being deficit hawks - while introducing tax cuts and pension increases. The intention is eternal austerity, which is what they believe, a minimal state. The Conservatives are fundamentally changing the structure of the state without ever making the case for it.
Some conservatives may hold that view. I very, very much doubt that the two occupying 10 and 11 Downing street do. State largesse is bigger than ever, we've cut the military to the bone, we've increased spending on benefits, increased spending on foreign aid, increased spending on healthcare. If Cameron and Osborne are small state conservatives then they are doing a very poor job. On corporation tax, at 20% we are raising the same amount of money, in cash terms, as we did pre-crash at 28% and significantly more than 2008/9 during the crash, much higher than just inflation or growth over the period. That is a classic Laffer argument and I think Osborne is definitely of the Laffer school, there is scant evidence that he or Dave are small state Cons though. I am, and I'm extremely disappointed that benefits aren't being cut faster, that he backed down on the £12bn figure (that was in the manifesto) because it would hurt his leadership chances and that they support foreign aid spending over defence spending.
Excellent Guardian piece (two in 10 minutes, must be a record) on tuition fees (though I'd quibble with the conclusion - primary schools are possibly even more important). Complete with comments entirely missing the point, natch.
It’s not fashionable. You won’t see many middle class students protesting about it, and it tends to be overlooked by graduate writers (like me) who tend to assume that the world revolves around our experiences; but if you want to spend ten billion quid addressing inequality in the education system then the target is pretty obvious – don’t give tax breaks to us graduates, pour the cash into secondary schools instead.
It's not just graduates who pay tuition fees. You pay them regardless of whether you graduate and no matter what course you graduate from - which disproportionately harms the poor.
There is pretty much no good argument why university education should not be paid out of general taxation.
It was Labour wot introduced Tuition Fees! In 1998!
Yes, one of many terrible Labour policies under Blair that paved the way to the current Conservative government.
you may pay them regardless of what course you may or may not have graduated from, but you don't pay unless you earn a certain amount of money.
I disagree. It's death by a thousand stealth cuts. Despite the noise to the contrary, healthcare spending per capita has gone down, while in almost every other country it continues to go significantly up. They have introduced increasingly draconian rules on benefits, whether unemployment benefit, housing benefit and rules on universal credit. Council tax has been frozen for years.
Look, we could debate over corporation tax (and the Laffer Curve, which is utter nonsense, as demonstrated by how people never use the Laffer Curve in favour of *increasing* taxes). But the fact is they're *not even arguing the case*. That's my point. Right or wrong, they're not even discussing it. They're hand-waving it away.
I disagree. It's death by a thousand stealth cuts. Despite the noise to the contrary, healthcare spending per capita has gone down,
And Labour takes no responsibility for the fact that the NHS has to treat more people because it opened the borders 1997-2010, despite going into the 2010 election saying it would have to cut that same NHS.
The Left can deliver no lectures on healthcare in this country.
Or on education.
Or on housing.
Not until admits that it healthcare spending per capita would have been less than we currently have if it had stayed in power.
I disagree. It's death by a thousand stealth cuts. Despite the noise to the contrary, healthcare spending per capita has gone down,
And Labour takes no responsibility for the fact that the NHS has to treat more people because it opened the borders 1997-2010, despite going into the 2010 election saying it would have to cut that same NHS.
The Left can deliver no lectures on healthcare in this country.
Or on education.
Or on housing.
Not until admits that it healthcare spending per capita would have been less than we currently have if it had stayed in power.
Do you have evidence that healthcare spending *per capita* (inflation adjusted) would be any lower without immigration? That sounds wrong for me, especially given the aging native population, since immigrants tend to be younger.
And it's probably worth mentioning that a not insignificant chunk of those people who Labour "opened the borders" to actually work in the NHS.
But, yes, the Blair government was a disaster in many ways.
Random thought on immigrants and on winding up the French:
We should help the those poor souls in the Calais camps. We should do so by sending over a battalion of French teachers to help them integrate better. A lot of them seem to have the requisite arrogance and sense of entitlement to fit in perfectly, if they knew the lingo.
Excellent Guardian piece (two in 10 minutes, must be a record) on tuition fees (though I'd quibble with the conclusion - primary schools are possibly even more important). Complete with comments entirely missing the point, natch.
It’s not fashionable. You won’t see many middle class students protesting about it, and it tends to be overlooked by graduate writers (like me) who tend to assume that the world revolves around our experiences; but if you want to spend ten billion quid addressing inequality in the education system then the target is pretty obvious – don’t give tax breaks to us graduates, pour the cash into secondary schools instead.
It's not just graduates who pay tuition fees. You pay them regardless of whether you graduate and no matter what course you graduate from - which disproportionately harms the poor.
There is pretty much no good argument why university education should not be paid out of general taxation.
Yeah there is. In that link, for a start...
For a second, why should the dustman who never got the chance to go to Uni pay for the middle classes to have the University experience?
For a third, either the degree is advantageous to the student (in which case, why shouldn't they contribute?) or it is not (in which case, why should anyone else pay for them just to have a University experience?)
For a fourth, the evidence is that in the UK nation where tuition is free (Scotland), the incidence of students from poorer households going to university is far lower than in the nation where it is maximum (England)
Excellent Guardian piece (two in 10 minutes, must be a record) on tuition fees (though I'd quibble with the conclusion - primary schools are possibly even more important). Complete with comments entirely missing the point, natch.
It’s not fashionable. You won’t see many middle class students protesting about it, and it tends to be overlooked by graduate writers (like me) who tend to assume that the world revolves around our experiences; but if you want to spend ten billion quid addressing inequality in the education system then the target is pretty obvious – don’t give tax breaks to us graduates, pour the cash into secondary schools instead.
It's not just graduates who pay tuition fees. You pay them regardless of whether you graduate and no matter what course you graduate from - which disproportionately harms the poor.
There is pretty much no good argument why university education should not be paid out of general taxation.
It was Labour wot introduced Tuition Fees! In 1998!
Based on today's topsy-turvy Jezbollah world, I think you mean the Tories, masquerading as New Labour. So it doesn't count .
Comments
'If we vote to remain in the EU I wonder how many months it will be before everyone realises the emergency brake/break is worthless and calls for another referendum start growing. '
The emergency break is a load of bull and in any case we would not be allowed to apply it without the EU's permission so totally pointless.
Why not just change the payment of benefits to 4 years residency in the UK which would apply to UK & EU nationals.
Better still just Leave so we can actually control immigration and remove the constant strain on public services & housing.If we are short of staff for the NHS we can offer work visas like any other independent country
Most of the cabinet will declare their doubts dispelled. The last bits of legal preparation will be rushed through parliament, and the country will have its say on 23 June. Faced with the choice between a modest plan promoted by a prime minister in full pomp and a litany of complaint by embittered political B-listers, Britain will vote to stay in the EU.
Many senior Tories think that scenario is feasible enough to diminish the appeal of campaigning for Brexit, even if that is where their hearts might tend. “In the end it will come down to jobs and the economy, and it won’t even be close,” says one very Eurosceptic cabinet minister.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/27/tories-george-osborne-europe-conservative-brussels
The early poll is key - Downing Street think they have this in the bag right now and don't want it to get away.
I'm getting the image,Farron in Corbyn's top pocket ;-)
What's the point of the limp Dems ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/27/about-that-donald-trump-ground-game-twice-as-many-iowans-say-ted-cruz-has-contacted-them/
Particularly interesting is the bar-chart giving numbers for whether a given voter had been contacted by each campaign. The number which stands out isn't so much Cruz's (the highest, at 25%), but Rubio's - second highest at 17%. Only 13% had been contacted by the Trump campaign.
Ain't that the truth.
It’s not fashionable. You won’t see many middle class students protesting about it, and it tends to be overlooked by graduate writers (like me) who tend to assume that the world revolves around our experiences; but if you want to spend ten billion quid addressing inequality in the education system then the target is pretty obvious – don’t give tax breaks to us graduates, pour the cash into secondary schools instead.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2016/jan/28/the-evidence-suggests-i-was-completely-wrong-about-tuition-fees
I agree and have bet accordingly.
(Full disclosure: I am rather exposed on Rubio but that's because his odds are way too short given the evidence we have)
There is pretty much no good argument why university education should not be paid out of general taxation.
Shameless: Yes. Red doors in Middlesbrough, red wristbands in Cardiff. We proved that those red Tories, Blair Brown and Darling collected no tax at all from Google. Overall a really good bunch of gripes. Now let us watch the cut through with Ipsos Mori.
The people in Calais are not refugees. If they are then why haven't they registered for refugee status in France?
A whole special morning on R5 today on this. Never once anybody saying well letting all and sundry in might not be a good idea, not once asking the question why haven't they claimed asylum in France & not once asking the question why is it the UK responsibility to help these people in horrific conditions when they are in rich first world not war torn France.
Agree,sky news are has bad ,you would think what a bast*rd Cameron is with they reporting on the migrant children in Calais or in other EU countries ;-)
Sky and the BBC are just out of touch with the majority attitude in the Country. They trawl round Calais with the intention of guilt tripping the Country and yet never ask why they don't apply for asylum in France. Just heard David Cameron asked whether re regrets his 'bunch' remark yesterday and he said he did not as he was highlighting Corbyn's attitude that they should just be allowed to come to the UK. He too said that France is a safe country and they should apply for asylum there and if they have UK connections they will then be able to come to the UK. David Cameron is the only leader with the courage to act in the Country's best interest and is making very difficult decisions. Thankfully he is our PM at this difficult time, Corbyn, Farron et al would be a disaster
The other bbc angle the today got a bit blown out the water...that all the shooting was nasty outsiders in particular British smugglers...then they interviewed a "resident" who said no,it was a turf war & residents were involved & it is the Afghans & Albanians who control the smuggling.
And the French look away. This is and must remain France's problem
What are you talking about it is all that evil Cameron fault & all Britain should be ashamed of ourselves...or so the liberal media guilt trip line goes...
Absolutely Sky and BBC's take on the subject. Listening to the media these days they are so detached from the Country and it also demonstrates the London centric nature of the journalists and presenters most of whom show limited knowledge of the subjects with selective reporting. Also Paper Reviewers are generally just ill informed.
Before the refugee crisis, I would have agreed with Behr 100%.
The European authorities' deep contempt for their own citizens has changed the game dramatically, in my view.
Lloyds Banking Group Share Offer: Message from the Chancellor
Thank you for registering for the Lloyds Banking Group share offer that we've committed to. I value the fact that you are interested in taking part, so I wanted personally to let you know about some important news today.
I want us to create a share owning democracy in Britain. The Lloyds Banking Group share offer will help build that by giving the general public the chance to have a greater stake in our economy, and it will encourage long-term share ownership. So it will go ahead.
It is also my responsibility to ensure economic security. With the turbulent conditions we see in financial markets, I hope you agree with me that now is not the right time for that share offer.
So I've announced today that we will wait for those financial markets to settle down before going ahead. We'll keep you informed of developments.
Yours sincerely,
Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne
Rubio might not drift too much until Super Tuesday, unless Trump really smashes it out the park.
Editorial objectivity has gone out of the window. Ditto scrutiny. Many modern mainstream journalists see themselves as opinion formers, opinion swayers, it is all about them.
Once the 'bunch' affair is over they'll be on to the next short term outrage bus event that they can grandstand on.
The thing is, people are starting to notice.
I wonder what/if difference it makes. Difficult to see the result not going to Cruz/Trump with the other second. Does it therefore make so much difference if Rubio got 11% or 17%? Could he possibly then take second in NH?
It makes sense as a strategy, which of course isn't the same as saying it will work. But we mustn't underestimate the uncertainty in these early contests.
There are multiple reasons the Conservatives won, but the Conservatives have never been forthright about their fundamental belief to dramatically cut the state and taxes. They never even made the argument, presumably as they didn't think they could win. Instead, it's always been obfuscated in one way or another. They talk of being deficit hawks - while introducing tax cuts and pension increases. The intention is eternal austerity, which is what they believe, a minimal state. The Conservatives are fundamentally changing the role of the state (and the tax system!) without even trying to make the case for it.
Labour needs to learn from this. There was a lot of things wrong with Labour under Blair, but he certainly understood the cynical way the Labour party needed to operate to succeed electorally.
If you look at the data, there's actually a very limited effect of adding money to secondary schools. Bigger improvements can be made by changes in culture within schools and focus on a few key areas.
Look, we could debate over corporation tax (and the Laffer Curve, which is utter nonsense, as demonstrated by how people never use the Laffer Curve in favour of *increasing* taxes). But the fact is they're *not even arguing the case*. That's my point. Right or wrong, they're not even discussing it. They're hand-waving it away.
The Left can deliver no lectures on healthcare in this country.
Or on education.
Or on housing.
Not until admits that it healthcare spending per capita would have been less than we currently have if it had stayed in power.
And it's probably worth mentioning that a not insignificant chunk of those people who Labour "opened the borders" to actually work in the NHS.
But, yes, the Blair government was a disaster in many ways.
We should help the those poor souls in the Calais camps. We should do so by sending over a battalion of French teachers to help them integrate better. A lot of them seem to have the requisite arrogance and sense of entitlement to fit in perfectly, if they knew the lingo.
For a second, why should the dustman who never got the chance to go to Uni pay for the middle classes to have the University experience?
For a third, either the degree is advantageous to the student (in which case, why shouldn't they contribute?) or it is not (in which case, why should anyone else pay for them just to have a University experience?)
For a fourth, the evidence is that in the UK nation where tuition is free (Scotland), the incidence of students from poorer households going to university is far lower than in the nation where it is maximum (England)