'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move on students. Need more details.
Yes I also have concerns, we are presently one of the top destinations for international students and in competition with US colleges for them, this has to be handled with care
This is an important export industry. Another dubious decision. She still worries me.
I've half written a thread entitled
'Did Theresa May only look good because she was up against the vacuous airhead Andrea Loathsome Leadsom?'
I may use the line, Theresa May = Gordon Brown in kitten heels?
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move on students. Need more details.
Yes I also have concerns, we are presently one of the top destinations for international students and in competition with US colleges for them, this has to be handled with care
This is an important export industry. Another dubious decision. She still worries me.
This would be her first potentially bad decision if she does not think it through
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move.
Because the student visa system is just a back door to a tier 2 visa. Reducing EU student numbers should be a priority, or at least forcing them into the foreign student system and making them pay foreign student fees up front rather than skipping out in student loans.
I'd say that non-EU students are also linked to illegal work and we need to reduce that.
There are two problems with EU students;
1) they are entitled to free places in UK schools if under 18, and there is a whole industry of 'guardians' for such children who are being paid to act in loco parentis for children of EU nationals so they can be taught in Britain;
2) they are entitled to student loans, and millions have taken them out - but to my certain knowledge less than 100 have ever paid them back. Of course, that is partly due to the laziness, incompetence and stupidity of the SLC and the egregious Kevin O'Connor, but the money lost is rather substantial.
As part of Brexit, we must ensure that this is rectified so that they pay for their education. Equally, it would be a very stupid mistake to restrict access to our schools and universities for foreign students to the point where we lose them all, as we are world-famous for the quality of our education, delivered in English, and it brings in big money for our economy.
We really need a change in the law in regards to student loans. It is way too easy for anybody to do a runner without paying and / or to be dishonest with their income when not part of the UK tax system...and there is little the authorities can do.
Doesn't help though when the authorities in question are so stupid and/or disorganised that - to take an example from personal experience - they don't know that July is the month before August or that it is illegal to share confidential documents with third parties.
Doesn't surprise me. I was lucky enough to pay my student loan off within 3 years of graduating but trying to pay them the extra money in lump sums confused the hell out of them.
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move on students. Need more details.
Yes I also have concerns, we are presently one of the top destinations for international students and in competition with US colleges for them, this has to be handled with care
Your original link was to a student newspaper, which is not particularly noted for its accuracy.
It was the Cambridge student newspaper which quoted the Times but we await more details
Apple could be ordered to pay billions of euros in back taxes in the Republic of Ireland by European Union competition officials.
The final ruling, expected on Tuesday, follows a three-year probe into Apple's Irish tax affairs, which the EU has previously found to be illegal. The Financial Times reports that the bill will be for billions of euros, making it Europe's biggest tax penalty.
Apple and the Irish government are likely to appeal against the ruling.
Doesn't surprise me. I was lucky enough to pay my student loan off within 3 years of graduating but trying to pay them the extra money in lump sums confused the hell out of them.
I think I will probably clear mine in two goes - once to get within two years' repayments so the cancel the PAYE method, and once to clear the rest.
Then I can write to Kevin O'Connor and June Brown telling them a few uncomfortable truths about their lies, rudeness, arrogance, complacency and incompetence and there will be nothing they can do about it.
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move on students. Need more details.
Yes I also have concerns, we are presently one of the top destinations for international students and in competition with US colleges for them, this has to be handled with care
This is an important export industry. Another dubious decision. She still worries me.
It really depends on the proposals. We don't want to turn Chinese students away, but if we turn away Indians who come to do dodgy courses as London Met while they work 60 hours per week delivering pizzas then it will be a success. If she can push EU students into the fees up front system for foreign students then that would be a huge win.
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move on students. Need more details.
Yes I also have concerns, we are presently one of the top destinations for international students and in competition with US colleges for them, this has to be handled with care
This is an important export industry. Another dubious decision. She still worries me.
It really depends on the proposals. We don't want to turn Chinese students away, but if we turn away Indians who come to do dodgy courses as London Met while they work 60 hours per week delivering pizzas then it will be a success. If she can push EU students into the fees up front system for foreign students then that would be a huge win.
I don't think the Chinese students are going anywhere.
Apple and the Irish government are likely to appeal against the ruling.
Anyone else find it slightly amusing that the Irish are thinking of appealing against a ruling that would solve many of their debt problems at a stroke?
Uneasy though I am at the EC sticking its nose into national tax affairs, there are times when I feel Labour have more than a small point about big multinationals taking the piss on tax.
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move on students. Need more details.
Yes I also have concerns, we are presently one of the top destinations for international students and in competition with US colleges for them, this has to be handled with care
This is an important export industry. Another dubious decision. She still worries me.
It really depends on the proposals. We don't want to turn Chinese students away, but if we turn away Indians who come to do dodgy courses as London Met while they work 60 hours per week delivering pizzas then it will be a success. If she can push EU students into the fees up front system for foreign students then that would be a huge win.
I don't think the Chinese students are going anywhere.
Canada? Cheaper, closer and with much less restrictive visa rules including the right to work there for some years after graduating. Moreover still Anglophone.
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move on students. Need more details.
Yes I also have concerns, we are presently one of the top destinations for international students and in competition with US colleges for them, this has to be handled with care
This is an important export industry. Another dubious decision. She still worries me.
It really depends on the proposals. We don't want to turn Chinese students away, but if we turn away Indians who come to do dodgy courses as London Met while they work 60 hours per week delivering pizzas then it will be a success. If she can push EU students into the fees up front system for foreign students then that would be a huge win.
I don't think the Chinese students are going anywhere.
Canada? Cheaper, closer and with much less restrictive visa rules including the right to work there for some years after graduating. Moreover still Anglophone.
I think with the growing middle class of Chinese there is enough of a market for UK, Canada, and US. I might be wrong, but I don't think when we had all this stuff before about slight tightening of the rules put off many genuine students (despite the quite crazy claims and dodgy examples the media found).
Apple could be ordered to pay billions of euros in back taxes in the Republic of Ireland by European Union competition officials.
The final ruling, expected on Tuesday, follows a three-year probe into Apple's Irish tax affairs, which the EU has previously found to be illegal. The Financial Times reports that the bill will be for billions of euros, making it Europe's biggest tax penalty.
Apple and the Irish government are likely to appeal against the ruling.
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move.
Because the student visa system is just a back door to a tier 2 visa. Reducing EU student numbers should be a priority, or at least forcing them into the foreign student system and making them pay foreign student fees up front rather than skipping out in student loans.
I'd say that non-EU students are also linked to illegal work and we need to reduce that.
There are two problems with EU students;
1) they are entitled to free places in UK schools if under 18, and there is a whole industry of 'guardians' for such children who are being paid to act in loco parentis for children of EU nationals so they can be taught in Britain;
2) they are entitled to student loans, and millions have taken them out - but to my certain knowledge less than 100 have ever paid them back. Of course, that is partly due to the laziness, incompetence and stupidity of the SLC and the egregious Kevin O'Connor, but the money lost is rather substantial.
As part of Brexit, we must ensure that this is rectified so that they pay for their education. Equally, it would be a very stupid mistake to restrict access to our schools and universities for foreign students to the point where we lose them all, as we are world-famous for the quality of our education, delivered in English, and it brings in big money for our economy.
We really need a change in the law in regards to student loans. It is way too easy for anybody to do a runner without paying and / or to be dishonest with their income when not part of the UK tax system...and there is little the authorities can do.
There is obviously much wrong with many of our current and ongoing systems, perhaps including the one you highlight.
However, I rather fear that there may be several issues which are, for want of another perceived solution, put under the "Brexit" umbrella. It's quite a large one; already this morning we have had a switch of freight mode from road to rail; and a new visa control system at UK ports. All in the name of Brexit.
I fear that much will be demanded of Brexit and the reality achieved will, perforce, fall far short of expectations.
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move on students. Need more details.
Yes I also have concerns, we are presently one of the top destinations for international students and in competition with US colleges for them, this has to be handled with care
This is an important export industry. Another dubious decision. She still worries me.
It really depends on the proposals. We don't want to turn Chinese students away, but if we turn away Indians who come to do dodgy courses as London Met while they work 60 hours per week delivering pizzas then it will be a success. If she can push EU students into the fees up front system for foreign students then that would be a huge win.
I don't think the Chinese students are going anywhere.
Canada? Cheaper, closer and with much less restrictive visa rules including the right to work there for some years after graduating. Moreover still Anglophone.
There are a lot of Chinese in Vancouver already. It's a viable destination - those that come here want to come here (obviously the equation shifts as we get tougher) but it's not like Canada isn't something they've not already considered
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move on students. Need more details.
Yes I also have concerns, we are presently one of the top destinations for international students and in competition with US colleges for them, this has to be handled with care
This is an important export industry. Another dubious decision. She still worries me.
I've half written a thread entitled
'Did Theresa May only look good because she was up against the vacuous airhead Andrea Loathsome Leadsom?'
I may use the line, Theresa May = Gordon Brown in kitten heels?
No. She looked good because her opposite has been Yvette Cooper.
There is obviously much wrong with many of our current and ongoing systems, perhaps including the one you highlight.
However, I rather fear that there may be several issues which are, for want of another perceived solution, put under the "Brexit" umbrella. It's quite a large one; already this morning we have had a switch of freight mode from road to rail; and a new visa control system at UK ports. All in the name of Brexit.
I fear that much will be demanded of Brexit and the reality achieved will, perforce, fall far short of expectations.
I don't think the student loans issue is exclusively an Brexit one. Yes we have an issue with EU students not paying back, but I think it is a big weakness in a system where the educated are more mobile than ever.
There is obviously much wrong with many of our current and ongoing systems, perhaps including the one you highlight.
However, I rather fear that there may be several issues which are, for want of another perceived solution, put under the "Brexit" umbrella. It's quite a large one; already this morning we have had a switch of freight mode from road to rail; and a new visa control system at UK ports. All in the name of Brexit.
I fear that much will be demanded of Brexit and the reality achieved will, perforce, fall far short of expectations.
I don't think the student loans issue is exclusively an Brexit one. Yes we have an issue with EU students not paying back, but I think it is a big weakness in a system where the educated are more mobile than ever.
I think that is my concern. There is a temptation to associate any ongoing issue to Brexit. Students, freight transport mode, border controls, etc and that's only on PB.
If we really do think that all these issues need addressing post-Brexit (and perhaps they do), then perhaps are also realising that our leaving the EU will entail a wholescale reworking of our economy and society.
He was such a great actor, out of the top of my head I remember the Producers, Blazing Saddles, Frankenstein, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the Silver Streak and the Woman in Red
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move on students. Need more details.
Yes I also have concerns, we are presently one of the top destinations for international students and in competition with US colleges for them, this has to be handled with care
This is an important export industry. Another dubious decision. She still worries me.
I've half written a thread entitled
'Did Theresa May only look good because she was up against the vacuous airhead Andrea Loathsome Leadsom?'
I may use the line, Theresa May = Gordon Brown in kitten heels?
I think she is more John Major than Gordon Brown, she should beat Corbyn/Smith in 2020 but the Tory right will complain unless BREXIT falls anything short of complete exit from the single market and a bricked up Channel Tunnel and if Labour then get a competent and charismatic leader (Chuka Umunna?) the 2025 election will be theirs for the taking!
There is obviously much wrong with many of our current and ongoing systems, perhaps including the one you highlight.
However, I rather fear that there may be several issues which are, for want of another perceived solution, put under the "Brexit" umbrella. It's quite a large one; already this morning we have had a switch of freight mode from road to rail; and a new visa control system at UK ports. All in the name of Brexit.
I fear that much will be demanded of Brexit and the reality achieved will, perforce, fall far short of expectations.
I don't think the student loans issue is exclusively an Brexit one. Yes we have an issue with EU students not paying back, but I think it is a big weakness in a system where the educated are more mobile than ever.
Yes but remember the most educated are comparing Oxbridge to Harvard and Yale and London to New York City, if we want to be the best we have to attract the best!
There is obviously much wrong with many of our current and ongoing systems, perhaps including the one you highlight.
However, I rather fear that there may be several issues which are, for want of another perceived solution, put under the "Brexit" umbrella. It's quite a large one; already this morning we have had a switch of freight mode from road to rail; and a new visa control system at UK ports. All in the name of Brexit.
I fear that much will be demanded of Brexit and the reality achieved will, perforce, fall far short of expectations.
I don't think the student loans issue is exclusively an Brexit one. Yes we have an issue with EU students not paying back, but I think it is a big weakness in a system where the educated are more mobile than ever.
Yes but remember the most educated are comparing Oxbridge to Harvard and Yale and London to New York City, if we want to be the best we have to attract the best!
No you are missing my point (I don't disagree with your points)....UK university educated students are more mobile than ever, so this twee idea of going to UK uni, get job in UK for life, earn via PAYE, pay back student loan is going to become less and less common.
Its like this nice idea of doing a national survey every 10 years and then base all local infrastructure planning on it for the next 10 years.
Bruegel appear to be proposing a two speed EU similar to what the Spinelli Group had been writing about in the run up to the EU referendum. It is particularly interesting to see that they mention the EEA members becoming part of the outer cirlce. Again this was something mentioned prior to the referendum.
If Dave came back with a deal involving associate membership he would have likely won. For whatever reason he decided to come back with a blank piece of paper.
Time for the weekly update on my average daily tracking poll.
Hillary 46 -0.5 Trump 42 +1
Since the first update on August 1st.
Hillary 46 46.5 46.5 47 44 Trump 42 41 40.5 41 41
Today Trump is at his best since July 30th, Hillary at her worst since August 1st. Trump has been going up almost everyday since August 15th in my average daily tracker.
At 4 points down he should be approaching the level of ties in most of the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Time for the weekly update on my average daily tracking poll.
Hillary 46 -0.5 Trump 42 +1
Since the first update on August 1st.
Hillary 46 46.5 46.5 47 44 Trump 42 41 40.5 41 41
Today Trump is at his best since July 30th, Hillary at her worst since August 1st. Trump has been going up almost everyday since August 15th in my average daily tracker.
At 4 points down he should be approaching the level of ties in most of the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
If that trend continues he'll be ahead by December....
Time for the weekly update on my average daily tracking poll.
Hillary 46 -0.5 Trump 42 +1
Since the first update on August 1st.
Hillary 46 46.5 46.5 47 44 Trump 42 41 40.5 41 41
Today Trump is at his best since July 30th, Hillary at her worst since August 1st. Trump has been going up almost everyday since August 15th in my average daily tracker.
At 4 points down he should be approaching the level of ties in most of the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
If that trend continues he'll be ahead by December....
If that trend continues, there is no guarantee that it will, but lets say IF.
It will be in about a month, since he has gained 2 points in 13 days and he is 4 points down.
Bruegel appear to be proposing a two speed EU similar to what the Spinelli Group had been writing about in the run up to the EU referendum. It is particularly interesting to see that they mention the EEA members becoming part of the outer cirlce. Again this was something mentioned prior to the referendum.
If Dave came back with a deal involving associate membership he would have likely won. For whatever reason he decided to come back with a blank piece of paper.
I doubt he could have gotten that deal. Although it was floated by some, I suspect it could only be even a slight possibility as a consequence of Brexit, not available before it. Granted, that is pure supposition on my part.
There is obviously much wrong with many of our current and ongoing systems, perhaps including the one you highlight.
However, I rather fear that there may be several issues which are, for want of another perceived solution, put under the "Brexit" umbrella. It's quite a large one; already this morning we have had a switch of freight mode from road to rail; and a new visa control system at UK ports. All in the name of Brexit.
I fear that much will be demanded of Brexit and the reality achieved will, perforce, fall far short of expectations.
I don't think the student loans issue is exclusively an Brexit one. Yes we have an issue with EU students not paying back, but I think it is a big weakness in a system where the educated are more mobile than ever.
Yes but remember the most educated are comparing Oxbridge to Harvard and Yale and London to New York City, if we want to be the best we have to attract the best!
No you are missing my point (I don't disagree with your points)....UK university educated students are more mobile than ever, so this twee idea of going to UK uni, get job in UK for life, earn via PAYE, pay back student loan is going to become less and less common.
Its like this nice idea of doing a national survey every 10 years and then base all local infrastructure planning on it for the next 10 years.
Certainly there needs to be better tracking of foreign students taking out student loans and even up front fees only but an outright restriction on international students would hamper our university sector and our economy
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move on students. Need more details.
Yes I also have concerns, we are presently one of the top destinations for international students and in competition with US colleges for them, this has to be handled with care
This is an important export industry. Another dubious decision. She still worries me.
I've half written a thread entitled
'Did Theresa May only look good because she was up against the vacuous airhead Andrea Loathsome Leadsom?'
That wasn't the only reason, although the juxtaposition made her own strengths of perceived competence, stability and experience even more pronounced.
Time for the weekly update on my average daily tracking poll.
Hillary 46 -0.5 Trump 42 +1
Since the first update on August 1st.
Hillary 46 46.5 46.5 47 44 Trump 42 41 40.5 41 41
Today Trump is at his best since July 30th, Hillary at her worst since August 1st. Trump has been going up almost everyday since August 15th in my average daily tracker.
At 4 points down he should be approaching the level of ties in most of the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Bang on cue Emerson has him tied in Ohio today, 3 behind in Pennsylvania and Mason-Dixon had him 2 behind in Florida last week. The debates look ever more crucial for both candidates
Question...evidence suggests that the campaign in the UK doesn't really shift a lot of votes, the debates certainly not...in the US have we seen in the past significant (permanent) shifts that have been put down to the debates.
Time for the weekly update on my average daily tracking poll.
Hillary 46 -0.5 Trump 42 +1
Since the first update on August 1st.
Hillary 46 46.5 46.5 47 44 Trump 42 41 40.5 41 41
Today Trump is at his best since July 30th, Hillary at her worst since August 1st. Trump has been going up almost everyday since August 15th in my average daily tracker.
At 4 points down he should be approaching the level of ties in most of the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Bang on cue Emerson has him tied in Ohio today, 3 behind in Pennsylvania and Mason-Dixon had him 2 behind in Florida last week. The debates look ever more crucial for both candidates
"The campaign expects the ads to begin airing as soon as Monday in nine states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida, where the campaign has already been on the air, along with New Hampshire, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada. They're all important swing states."
I wonder why Virginia and Colorado are on the list and not Michigan and Oregon who I think might be closer. Trump for instance hasn't done a single rally in Michigan or Oregon.
Question...evidence suggests that the campaign in the UK doesn't really shift a lot of votes, the debates certainly not...in the US have we seen in the past significant (permanent) shifts that have been put down to the debates.
The big difference in the US is that it's often the only time you'll ever see the two candidates on TV together at the same time. In the UK we see the Leader of the Opposition and the PM exchanging debating points every week.
Bruegel appear to be proposing a two speed EU similar to what the Spinelli Group had been writing about in the run up to the EU referendum. It is particularly interesting to see that they mention the EEA members becoming part of the outer cirlce. Again this was something mentioned prior to the referendum.
If Dave came back with a deal involving associate membership he would have likely won. For whatever reason he decided to come back with a blank piece of paper.
I doubt he could have gotten that deal. Although it was floated by some, I suspect it could only be even a slight possibility as a consequence of Brexit, not available before it. Granted, that is pure supposition on my part.
Hopefully more details of the renegotiation will be revealed in some of the books on Brexit scheduled for release over the next 12 months.
@Coral: BREAKING: Wayne Rooney to remain England captain
Sigh.....so not only has Big Sam dropped England's most promising player from the summer, Shrek is still captain. Uncle Roy come back all his forgiven...actually no that is going too far.
Question...evidence suggests that the campaign in the UK doesn't really shift a lot of votes, the debates certainly not...in the US have we seen in the past significant (permanent) shifts that have been put down to the debates.
The big difference in the US is that it's often the only time you'll ever see the two candidates on TV together at the same time. In the UK we see the Leader of the Opposition and the PM exchanging debating points every week.
Totally agree, and US people pay very little attention to politics (even more so than here). Am interested to know if there is data to show that this has potential for big swings.
Favourability among Hispanics born in the USA (87% registered to vote)
Hillary 43 Trump 29
Those not born in the USA (28% registered to vote)
Hillary 87 Trump 13
All adults today.
Hillary 38 Trump 33
So Hispanics born in the USA have about the same opinion as the average voter on both nominees, those who are not are loopsided for Hillary but few of them are registered.
That explains the polling in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico favouring Trump more than what you would expect.
Question...evidence suggests that the campaign in the UK doesn't really shift a lot of votes, the debates certainly not...in the US have we seen in the past significant (permanent) shifts that have been put down to the debates.
The big difference in the US is that it's often the only time you'll ever see the two candidates on TV together at the same time. In the UK we see the Leader of the Opposition and the PM exchanging debating points every week.
Totally agree, and US people pay very little attention to politics (even more so than here). Am interested to know if there is data to show that this has potential for big swings.
According to Gallup 3 candidates went from trailing pre-debates to leading afterwards, JFK in 1960 against Nixon, Reagan in 1980 against Carter and George W Bush in 2000 against Gore. Ford in 1976, Bush in 1992, Kerry in 2004 (and Romney in 2012) narrowed the gap after the debates but still lost. Mondale in 1984 made no net post debate gains and Dukakis in 1988 and Dole in 1996 actually saw their poll rating fall following the debates http://www.gallup.com/poll/110674/Presidential-Debates-Rarely-GameChangers.aspx
Question...evidence suggests that the campaign in the UK doesn't really shift a lot of votes, the debates certainly not...in the US have we seen in the past significant (permanent) shifts that have been put down to the debates.
Not entirely true, there was only a Coalition in 2010 because of Clegg's debate performance
The trick out of Brooklyn isn't just to make Hillary Clinton win but to make her win as something other than a brain-damaged crook who stole the election and will spend the next four years selling out the government from her deathbed.
Time for the weekly update on my average daily tracking poll.
Hillary 46 -0.5 Trump 42 +1
Since the first update on August 1st.
Hillary 46 46.5 46.5 47 44 Trump 42 41 40.5 41 41
Today Trump is at his best since July 30th, Hillary at her worst since August 1st. Trump has been going up almost everyday since August 15th in my average daily tracker.
At 4 points down he should be approaching the level of ties in most of the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Bang on cue Emerson has him tied in Ohio today, 3 behind in Pennsylvania and Mason-Dixon had him 2 behind in Florida last week. The debates look ever more crucial for both candidates
"The campaign expects the ads to begin airing as soon as Monday in nine states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida, where the campaign has already been on the air, along with New Hampshire, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada. They're all important swing states."
I wonder why Virginia and Colorado are on the list and not Michigan and Oregon who I think might be closer. Trump for instance hasn't done a single rally in Michigan or Oregon.
As Michigan and Oregon have not voted GOP since 1988 and 1984 respectively unlike Virginia and Colorado (Pennsylvania is in the same boat but is closer than both).
Favourability among Hispanics born in the USA (87% registered to vote)
Hillary 43 Trump 29
Those not born in the USA (28% registered to vote)
Hillary 87 Trump 13
All adults today.
Hillary 38 Trump 33
So Hispanics born in the USA have about the same opinion as the average voter on both nominees, those who are not are loopsided for Hillary but few of them are registered.
That explains the polling in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico favouring Trump more than what you would expect.
Yes, I think if Trump holds the same share of the Hispanic vote as Romney he wins Nevada and Arizona even if Hillary holds New Mexico
Time for the weekly update on my average daily tracking poll.
Hillary 46 -0.5 Trump 42 +1
Since the first update on August 1st.
Hillary 46 46.5 46.5 47 44 Trump 42 41 40.5 41 41
Today Trump is at his best since July 30th, Hillary at her worst since August 1st. Trump has been going up almost everyday since August 15th in my average daily tracker.
At 4 points down he should be approaching the level of ties in most of the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Bang on cue Emerson has him tied in Ohio today, 3 behind in Pennsylvania and Mason-Dixon had him 2 behind in Florida last week. The debates look ever more crucial for both candidates
"The campaign expects the ads to begin airing as soon as Monday in nine states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida, where the campaign has already been on the air, along with New Hampshire, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada. They're all important swing states."
I wonder why Virginia and Colorado are on the list and not Michigan and Oregon who I think might be closer. Trump for instance hasn't done a single rally in Michigan or Oregon.
I think most people Stateside would think that Michigan and Oregon would be extremely long shots for the GOP, whereas the others on the list are true battleground, even VA despite its continual demographic shift to the Dems (remember several of the statewide elections last time around went down to the wire and the Dems only won once the NoVa votes came in)
Question...evidence suggests that the campaign in the UK doesn't really shift a lot of votes, the debates certainly not...in the US have we seen in the past significant (permanent) shifts that have been put down to the debates.
The big difference in the US is that it's often the only time you'll ever see the two candidates on TV together at the same time. In the UK we see the Leader of the Opposition and the PM exchanging debating points every week.
Totally agree, and US people pay very little attention to politics (even more so than here). Am interested to know if there is data to show that this has potential for big swings.
According to Gallup 3 candidates went from trailing pre-debates to leading afterwards, JFK in 1960 against Nixon, Reagan in 1980 against Carter and George W Bush in 2000 against Gore. Ford in 1976, Bush in 1992, Kerry in 2004 (and Romney in 2012) narrowed the gap after the debates but still lost. Mondale in 1984 made no net post debate gains and Dukakis in 1988 and Dole in 1996 actually saw their poll rating fall following the debates http://www.gallup.com/poll/110674/Presidential-Debates-Rarely-GameChangers.aspx
Trump has to convince people that he is not a monster and he is smart enough to be president, in a TV studio surrounded by people ready to eat him alive.
At least he is convincing the public a bit that he is sane so far, since he is letting Hillary take the media spotlight with all the scandals about emails and corruption at her charity foundation, and now Weiner.
Stay low and let your opponent take the flack works.
Bruegel appear to be proposing a two speed EU similar to what the Spinelli Group had been writing about in the run up to the EU referendum. It is particularly interesting to see that they mention the EEA members becoming part of the outer cirlce. Again this was something mentioned prior to the referendum.
If Dave came back with a deal involving associate membership he would have likely won. For whatever reason he decided to come back with a blank piece of paper.
I tried to read it, I really did. Got about 2 pages in and fell asleep. Multiple heroic efforts later and still only got about another half page through it.
Negotiating Brexit will come down to who can stay awake through all the boredom and tedium.
As Michigan and Oregon have not voted GOP since 1988 and 1984 respectively unlike Virginia and Colorado (Pennsylvania is in the same boat but is closer than both).
If Trump is down by about 4 nationally, and he is down by about 5-7 in Michigan and down by about 5-6 in Oregon, I think that's closer than Virginia and Colorado and I've got no idea what could be going on in Connecticut.
Virginia is very difficult, because of 3 things: D.C suburbs, Tim Kaine, and the Washington media playing a big role there.
In Colorado you got 2 things: Lack of a primary to energize voters for Trump, and Bill Kristol in Colorado Springs.
Question...evidence suggests that the campaign in the UK doesn't really shift a lot of votes, the debates certainly not...in the US have we seen in the past significant (permanent) shifts that have been put down to the debates.
The big difference in the US is that it's often the only time you'll ever see the two candidates on TV together at the same time. In the UK we see the Leader of the Opposition and the PM exchanging debating points every week.
Totally agree, and US people pay very little attention to politics (even more so than here). Am interested to know if there is data to show that this has potential for big swings.
According to Gallup 3 candidates went from trailing pre-debates to leading afterwards, JFK in 1960 against Nixon, Reagan in 1980 against Carter and George W Bush in 2000 against Gore. Ford in 1976, Bush in 1992, Kerry in 2004 (and Romney in 2012) narrowed the gap after the debates but still lost. Mondale in 1984 made no net post debate gains and Dukakis in 1988 and Dole in 1996 actually saw their poll rating fall following the debates http://www.gallup.com/poll/110674/Presidential-Debates-Rarely-GameChangers.aspx
Trump has to convince people that he is not a monster and he is smart enough to be president, in a TV studio surrounded by people ready to eat him alive.
At least he is convincing the public a bit that he is sane so far, since he is letting Hillary take the media spotlight with all the scandals about emails and corruption at her charity foundation, and now Weiner.
Stay low and let your opponent take the flack works.
Yes, he should be studying Reagan's 1980 performance in particular and trying to portray Hillary as the candidate of the failed, establishment status quo, much as Reagan managed to do with Carter in 1980. Reagan's 'there you go again' remark was one of the pivotal moments of the campaign https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN7gDRjTNf4
The trick out of Brooklyn isn't just to make Hillary Clinton win but to make her win as something other than a brain-damaged crook who stole the election and will spend the next four years selling out the government from her deathbed.
Ouch:
"But the politics are made harder amid the drip-drip revelations from the newly released emails demonstrating the messy overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, which leave even many Clinton-inclined voters wondering what she was really up to and why it’s so hard for her to explain it."
Yes, he should be studying Reagan's 1980 performance in particular and trying to portray Hillary as the candidate of the failed, establishment status quo, much as Reagan managed to do with Carter in 1980. Reagan's 'there you go again' remark was one of the pivotal moments of the campaign https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN7gDRjTNf4
Carter was already dead before that. Reagan adding some good humour worked, but it was the:
"Are you better today than 4 years ago"
That killed Carter's chances.
Trump can't ask that question, because it's not clear if the answer is YES or NO today. If he asks it about 16-20 years ago at the time of NAFTA and the dotcom bubble, the answer maybe NO.
Bruegel appear to be proposing a two speed EU similar to what the Spinelli Group had been writing about in the run up to the EU referendum. It is particularly interesting to see that they mention the EEA members becoming part of the outer cirlce. Again this was something mentioned prior to the referendum.
If Dave came back with a deal involving associate membership he would have likely won. For whatever reason he decided to come back with a blank piece of paper.
I tried to read it, I really did. Got about 2 pages in and fell asleep. Multiple heroic efforts later and still only got about another half page through it.
Negotiating Brexit will come down to who can stay awake through all the boredom and tedium.
There was a lot of waffle and could have been half as long.
Yes, he should be studying Reagan's 1980 performance in particular and trying to portray Hillary as the candidate of the failed, establishment status quo, much as Reagan managed to do with Carter in 1980. Reagan's 'there you go again' remark was one of the pivotal moments of the campaign https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN7gDRjTNf4
Carter was already dead before that. Reagan adding some good humour worked, but it was the:
"Are you better today than 4 years ago"
That killed Carter's chances.
Trump can't ask that question, because it's not clear if the answer is YES or NO today. If he asks it about 16-20 years ago at the time of NAFTA and the dotcom bubble, the answer maybe NO.
Yes it all added up to the image of a president who was all talk and no action and a symbol of a failed status quo. Given Hillary's role in the Obama administration and her role as the very epitome of the globalist, pro-establishment status-quo the links should not be too difficult to make
The trick out of Brooklyn isn't just to make Hillary Clinton win but to make her win as something other than a brain-damaged crook who stole the election and will spend the next four years selling out the government from her deathbed.
Ouch:
"But the politics are made harder amid the drip-drip revelations from the newly released emails demonstrating the messy overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, which leave even many Clinton-inclined voters wondering what she was really up to and why it’s so hard for her to explain it."
Daily Mirror...breaking news...2 weeks after everybody else. If I was editor of the Mirror, I would be ashamed to even think of rehashing a 2 week old story with the same photos and no new or pressing public interest info.
I believe the phrase "phoning it in" is what the Mirror did over the Bank Holiday Monday.
Question...evidence suggests that the campaign in the UK doesn't really shift a lot of votes, the debates certainly not...in the US have we seen in the past significant (permanent) shifts that have been put down to the debates.
The big difference in the US is that it's often the only time you'll ever see the two candidates on TV together at the same time. In the UK we see the Leader of the Opposition and the PM exchanging debating points every week.
Totally agree, and US people pay very little attention to politics (even more so than here). Am interested to know if there is data to show that this has potential for big swings.
According to Gallup 3 candidates went from trailing pre-debates to leading afterwards, JFK in 1960 against Nixon, Reagan in 1980 against Carter and George W Bush in 2000 against Gore. Ford in 1976, Bush in 1992, Kerry in 2004 (and Romney in 2012) narrowed the gap after the debates but still lost. Mondale in 1984 made no net post debate gains and Dukakis in 1988 and Dole in 1996 actually saw their poll rating fall following the debates http://www.gallup.com/poll/110674/Presidential-Debates-Rarely-GameChangers.aspx
Um, I looked at that list and thought "that means the polls after the debates are good predictors of who will win". Which is *good*, yes?
Bruegel appear to be proposing a two speed EU similar to what the Spinelli Group had been writing about in the run up to the EU referendum. It is particularly interesting to see that they mention the EEA members becoming part of the outer cirlce. Again this was something mentioned prior to the referendum.
If Dave came back with a deal involving associate membership he would have likely won. For whatever reason he decided to come back with a blank piece of paper.
I tried to read it, I really did. Got about 2 pages in and fell asleep. Multiple heroic efforts later and still only got about another half page through it.
Negotiating Brexit will come down to who can stay awake through all the boredom and tedium.
There was a lot of waffle and could have been half as long.
That was my life for 14 years. Too many days in stale-aired rooms negotiating international treaties, resolutions, decisions and statements. And all were just as gripping reading as the Breugel Group offering.
Bruegel appear to be proposing a two speed EU similar to what the Spinelli Group had been writing about in the run up to the EU referendum. It is particularly interesting to see that they mention the EEA members becoming part of the outer cirlce. Again this was something mentioned prior to the referendum.
If Dave came back with a deal involving associate membership he would have likely won. For whatever reason he decided to come back with a blank piece of paper.
I tried to read it, I really did. Got about 2 pages in and fell asleep. Multiple heroic efforts later and still only got about another half page through it.
Negotiating Brexit will come down to who can stay awake through all the boredom and tedium.
There was a lot of waffle and could have been half as long.
That was my life for 14 years. Too many days in stale-aired rooms negotiating international treaties, resolutions, decisions and statements. And all were just as gripping reading as the Breugel Group offering.
It could have done with more bullet points. I offered it to show that, now some of the emotion is draining, people are putting their thinking caps on.
I think I will probably clear mine in two goes - once to get within two years' repayments so the cancel the PAYE method, and once to clear the rest.
Can I ask what the point is? You're a youngish man with a long way to go to retirement. Rather than spend that money paying off your student loan, which effectively gives you the benefit of a reduced marginal tax rate on income above a fairly high threshold (at least, it's a threshold that's fairly high relative to the income in your profession) have you considered completely topping up a year's stocks and shares ISA, probably in a low-fee tracker fund? Or long-term fixed-interest savings if you are more cautious. It is worth considering, over the course of 40 years, whether you would expect this to outweigh money saved on student loan interest repayments.
Paying off student loans early also reduces your liquidity, in case you have an unanticipated need for cash. Housing deposit? Car? Wedding? Sudden cessation of income - as a former secondary school teacher myself, I was acutely aware that not only is one often but a fall-out with management / poor Ofsted report/ one institutional financial issue away from redundancy (seen colleagues lose their jobs for all three reasons), but one malicious yet credible false allegation away from never being able to work in education again (never saw it personally, but it was the main motivation for paying my union membership!).
Moreover, the threshold aspect of student loan repayments means there is a non-zero probability that unanticipated changes in your lifestyle will result in your repayments dropping to zero or near-zero so that your debt will ultimately be written off and the net present value of your repayment stream (the thing you will save by paying off early) is negligible. There are many possible reasons for dropping your teaching hours, as I saw many former colleagues do. You marry someone rich and become a stay-at-home dad? For health reasons or work-life balance you switch to working part-time? You have to become a full or part-time carer due to someone else's illness or disability? You get fed up of teaching and move to lower-paid work - perhaps lower skilled work, but high-skilled jobs in history writing or the religious and charitable sectors can also have low incomes. Could you write any such scenario off as truly impossible? If there is, say, a 10% chance of this happening, then that's 10% wiped off of the expected present value of your repayment stream, which makes alternative uses of your money more appealing.
Disclaimer: I'm not a financial adviser. But if you are thinking about quite serious four-figure sums of money you ought to think about this one very carefully. Martin Lewis generally advocates not paying them off early, you may or may not find his rationales convincing.
Bruegel appear to be proposing a two speed EU similar to what the Spinelli Group had been writing about in the run up to the EU referendum. It is particularly interesting to see that they mention the EEA members becoming part of the outer cirlce. Again this was something mentioned prior to the referendum.
If Dave came back with a deal involving associate membership he would have likely won. For whatever reason he decided to come back with a blank piece of paper.
I tried to read it, I really did. Got about 2 pages in and fell asleep. Multiple heroic efforts later and still only got about another half page through it.
Negotiating Brexit will come down to who can stay awake through all the boredom and tedium.
There was a lot of waffle and could have been half as long.
That was my life for 14 years. Too many days in stale-aired rooms negotiating international treaties, resolutions, decisions and statements. And all were just as gripping reading as the Breugel Group offering.
This is the Continuity Remain position now, as laid out also by O'Donnell. Before the referendum Cameron was trying to persuade the Icelanders to join this 'outer ring' ie pushing the Five Presidents' agenda to collapse the EEA.
Question...evidence suggests that the campaign in the UK doesn't really shift a lot of votes, the debates certainly not...in the US have we seen in the past significant (permanent) shifts that have been put down to the debates.
The big difference in the US is that it's often the only time you'll ever see the two candidates on TV together at the same time. In the UK we see the Leader of the Opposition and the PM exchanging debating points every week.
Totally agree, and US people pay very little attention to politics (even more so than here). Am interested to know if there is data to show that this has potential for big swings.
According to Gallup 3 candidates went from trailing pre-debates to leading afterwards, JFK in 1960 against Nixon, Reagan in 1980 against Carter and George W Bush in 2000 against Gore. Ford in 1976, Bush in 1992, Kerry in 2004 (and Romney in 2012) narrowed the gap after the debates but still lost. Mondale in 1984 made no net post debate gains and Dukakis in 1988 and Dole in 1996 actually saw their poll rating fall following the debates http://www.gallup.com/poll/110674/Presidential-Debates-Rarely-GameChangers.aspx
Um, I looked at that list and thought "that means the polls after the debates are good predictors of who will win". Which is *good*, yes?
Yes, no candidate who has led in polls after the debates has lost (albeit George W Bush lost the popular vote in 2000)
Can I ask what the point is? You're a youngish man with a long way to go to retirement. Rather than spend that money paying off your student loan, which effectively gives you the benefit of a reduced marginal tax rate on income above a fairly high threshold (at least, it's a threshold that's fairly high relative to the income in your profession) have you considered completely topping up a year's stocks and shares ISA, probably in a low-fee tracker fund? Or long-term fixed-interest savings if you are more cautious. It is worth considering, over the course of 40 years, whether you would expect this to outweigh money saved on student loan interest repayments.
Paying off student loans early also reduces your liquidity, in case you have an unanticipated need for cash. Housing deposit? Car? Wedding? Sudden cessation of income - as a former secondary school teacher myself, I was acutely aware that not only is one often but a fall-out with management / poor Ofsted report/ one institutional financial issue away from redundancy (seen colleagues lose their jobs for all three reasons), but one malicious yet credible false allegation away from never being able to work in education again (never saw it personally, but it was the main motivation for paying my union membership!).
Moreover, the threshold aspect of student loan repayments means there is a non-zero probability that unanticipated changes in your lifestyle will result in your repayments dropping to zero or near-zero so that your debt will ultimately be written off and the net present value of your repayment stream (the thing you will save by paying off early) is negligible. There are many possible reasons for dropping your teaching hours, as I saw many former colleagues do. You marry someone rich and become a stay-at-home dad? For health reasons or work-life balance you switch to working part-time? You have to become a full or part-time carer due to someone else's illness or disability? You get fed up of teaching and move to lower-paid work - perhaps lower skilled work, but high-skilled jobs in history writing or the religious and charitable sectors can also have low incomes. Could you write any such scenario off as truly impossible? If there is, say, a 10% chance of this happening, then that's 10% wiped off of the expected present value of your repayment stream, which makes alternative uses of your money more appealing.
Disclaimer: I'm not a financial adviser. But if you are thinking about quite serious four-figure sums of money you ought to think about this one very carefully. Martin Lewis generally advocates not paying them off early, you may or may not find his rationales convincing.
I have heard Martin Lewis say this a number of times and I think in general he is correct i.e you are on the standard PAYE graduate scheme yadda yadda yadda. However, for some it there are some good reasons to.
I have heard Martin Lewis say this a number of times and I think in general he is correct i.e you are on the standard PAYE graduate scheme yadda yadda yadda. However, for some it there are some good reasons to.
The mechanics also differ depending on which generation of student loan you had, though the good doctor's age and time at university are public knowledge on this forum and from that I'd imagine that the terms he is on are fairly generous to those who don't repay early.
Still, there are reasons to pay off early for some people. One I've heard of is someone with too much cash to claim benefits they would otherwise be entitled to, but who expected to be on a good salary (and to repay in full, one way or the other) in later life.
I suspect there are other scenarios where someone might want to stop student loan repayments being deducted from their salary in order to increase their net income - with a mortgage in mind perhaps?
Bruegel appear to be proposing a two speed EU similar to what the Spinelli Group had been writing about in the run up to the EU referendum. It is particularly interesting to see that they mention the EEA members becoming part of the outer cirlce. Again this was something mentioned prior to the referendum.
If Dave came back with a deal involving associate membership he would have likely won. For whatever reason he decided to come back with a blank piece of paper.
I tried to read it, I really did. Got about 2 pages in and fell asleep. Multiple heroic efforts later and still only got about another half page through it.
Negotiating Brexit will come down to who can stay awake through all the boredom and tedium.
There was a lot of waffle and could have been half as long.
That was my life for 14 years. Too many days in stale-aired rooms negotiating international treaties, resolutions, decisions and statements. And all were just as gripping reading as the Breugel Group offering.
This is the Continuity Remain position now, as laid out also by O'Donnell. Before the referendum Cameron was trying to persuade the Icelanders to join this 'outer ring' ie pushing the Five Presidents' agenda to collapse the EEA.
In my opinion the Eurofederalists are too late with the proposal. I really cannot see an arrangement which leads to the UK being subservient to the EU being politically viable. Coming back with a deal which involves the EU retaining trade competence is simply not going to fly.
Can I ask what the point is? You're a youngish man with a long way to go to retirement. Rather than spend that money paying off your student loan, which effectively gives you the benefit of a reduced marginal tax rate on income above a fairly high threshold (at least, it's a threshold that's fairly high relative to the income in your profession) have you considered completely topping up a year's stocks and shares ISA, probably in a low-fee tracker fund? Or long-term fixed-interest savings if you are more cautious. It is worth considering, over the course of 40 years, whether you would expect this to outweigh money saved
Moreover, the threshold aspect of student loan repayments means there is a non-zero probability that unanticipated changes in your lifestyle will result in your repayments dropping to zero or near-zero so that your debt will ultimately be written off and the net present value of your repayment stream (the thing you will save by paying off early) is negligible. There are many possible reasons for dropping your teaching hours, as I saw many former colleagues do. You marry someone rich and become a stay-at-home dad? For health reasons or work-life balance you switch to working part-time? You have to become a full or part-time carer due to someone else's illness or disability? You get fed up of teaching and move to lower-paid work - perhaps lower skilled work, but high-skilled jobs in history writing or the religious and charitable sectors can also have low incomes. Could you write any such scenario off as truly impossible? If there is, say, a 10% chance of this happening, then that's 10% wiped off of the expected present value of your repayment stream, which makes alternative uses of your money more appealing.
Disclaimer: I'm not a financial adviser. But if you are thinking about quite serious four-figure sums of money you ought to think about this one very carefully. Martin Lewis generally advocates not paying them off early, you may or may not find his rationales convincing.
I have heard Martin Lewis say this a number of times and I think in general he is correct i.e you are on the standard PAYE graduate scheme yadda yadda yadda. However, for some it there are some good reasons to.
The mistake the LibDems made was to get too involved in the detail, where they actually achieved a great deal and a system that already operates more like a graduate tax than a loan, whilst allowing the Tories to maintain control of the big picture and so paint their support as a u-turn. And for the participants, of course, the catch is that what MBE recommends is financially logical but not necessarily emotionally preferable. Being told you are carrying a debt for thirty years feels like a burden even if the practical reality is closer to a future supplementary percentage tax on your income.
I think Joff sees things too apocalyptically, and we really do not have a constitiution which dictates that the Opposition must act in any particular way. If Corbyn wins (and I don't think it's quite a done deal, by the way), I expect the Shadow Cabinet to re-form more effectively as most MPs will shrug and make the best of it. If they don't, we would simply have an ineffective opposition due to an explicit choice of the PLP not to listen to the members who chose them as Labour candidates and to undermine the re-elected leadership by refusing to work with it. That is not a problem that Bercow can or will solve (there have been periods of ineffective opposition before), but I don't expect it to happen.
A separate question is whether there will be actual defections. Some, I think, but not very many.
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move.
Because the student visa system is just a back door to a tier 2 visa. Reducing EU student numbers should be a priority, or at least forcing them into the foreign student system and making them pay foreign student fees up front rather than skipping out in student loans.
I'd say that non-EU students are also linked to illegal work and we need to reduce that.
I think this is one of the simplest issues to solve:
- restrict student visas to proper universities - really toughen up the rules on employment of illegal workers (including the 'shop an employer, get yourself residence' rule)
Between them, this would dramatically reduce the number of fake students, and those coming here to secretly get visas. That being said, there are always going to be people who come here to do an MSc in something or another and fall in love and get married. If you let people into your country to do courses, some of them are going to stay.
@John_M, thanks for the Breughel link. It's a very well exposition of a certain viewpoint. Everyone - whatever their views on future EU-UK relations - should read it.
The mistake the LibDems made was to get too involved in the detail, where they actually achieved a great deal and a system that already operates more like a graduate tax than a loan, whilst allowing the Tories to maintain control of the big picture and so paint their support as a u-turn. And for the participants, of course, the catch is that what MBE recommends is financially logical but not necessarily emotionally preferable. Being told you are carrying a debt for thirty years feels like a burden even if the practical reality is closer to a future supplementary percentage tax on your income.
An interesting point of comparison: how would you feel if someone told you that HMRC were counting exactly how much income tax you paid each year, totting it all up, and once you had got past a certain total, then you will never need to pay income tax again!
That's great, right? Top news!
Only downer is that the total you need to overcome is a moving target, with your "tax remaining to be paid" increasing in an inflation-linked manner. But if you're mad keen you can pay off extra tax, to hit that total early.
Now I wonder how that would feel compared to being told you had an "income tax debt" and whether it would change the "early repayment rate"?
Apple could be ordered to pay billions of euros in back taxes in the Republic of Ireland by European Union competition officials.
The final ruling, expected on Tuesday, follows a three-year probe into Apple's Irish tax affairs, which the EU has previously found to be illegal. The Financial Times reports that the bill will be for billions of euros, making it Europe's biggest tax penalty.
Apple and the Irish government are likely to appeal against the ruling.
There are a couple of tax cases against Apple in the works; the one regarding local content is going to be particularly interesting. (It is alleged that Apple has, errr..., put put a circuit board in a box and claimed something in made in the Ireland for tax purposes.)
Apple could be ordered to pay billions of euros in back taxes in the Republic of Ireland by European Union competition officials.
The final ruling, expected on Tuesday, follows a three-year probe into Apple's Irish tax affairs, which the EU has previously found to be illegal. The Financial Times reports that the bill will be for billions of euros, making it Europe's biggest tax penalty.
Apple and the Irish government are likely to appeal against the ruling.
Apple and the Irish government are likely to appeal against the ruling.
Anyone else find it slightly amusing that the Irish are thinking of appealing against a ruling that would solve many of their debt problems at a stroke?
Uneasy though I am at the EC sticking its nose into national tax affairs, there are times when I feel Labour have more than a small point about big multinationals taking the piss on tax.
Ireland doesn't really have any debt problems any more. Government debt-to-GDP is now below ours (it was double at its peak), and as the NAMA assets are sold off, it will come down to c. 50%.
Apple could be ordered to pay billions of euros in back taxes in the Republic of Ireland by European Union competition officials.
The final ruling, expected on Tuesday, follows a three-year probe into Apple's Irish tax affairs, which the EU has previously found to be illegal. The Financial Times reports that the bill will be for billions of euros, making it Europe's biggest tax penalty.
Apple and the Irish government are likely to appeal against the ruling.
There are a couple of tax cases against Apple in the works; the one regarding local content is going to be particularly interesting. (It is alleged that Apple has, errr..., put put a circuit board in a box and claimed something in made in the Ireland for tax purposes.)
A good time to short Apple stock... The new iPhone launch next week is likely to be their first major flop for a long time.
Time for the weekly update on my average daily tracking poll.
Hillary 46 -0.5 Trump 42 +1
Since the first update on August 1st.
Hillary 46 46.5 46.5 47 44 Trump 42 41 40.5 41 41
Today Trump is at his best since July 30th, Hillary at her worst since August 1st. Trump has been going up almost everyday since August 15th in my average daily tracker.
At 4 points down he should be approaching the level of ties in most of the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
If that trend continues he'll be ahead by December....
If that trend continues, he'll be up in three weeks, and will have a 30% lead by December.
Time for the weekly update on my average daily tracking poll.
Hillary 46 -0.5 Trump 42 +1
Since the first update on August 1st.
Hillary 46 46.5 46.5 47 44 Trump 42 41 40.5 41 41
Today Trump is at his best since July 30th, Hillary at her worst since August 1st. Trump has been going up almost everyday since August 15th in my average daily tracker.
At 4 points down he should be approaching the level of ties in most of the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
If that trend continues he'll be ahead by December....
If that trend continues, he'll be up in three weeks, and will have a 30% lead by December.
Leading Labour and being the official opposition leader is not only good for Corbyn's brand of socialism but also his bank balance, what other person with 2 E grade A Levels, no degree and no work experience outside trade unions and the Labour Party would earn £138,000 a year, live in a £600,000 house and have a £2 million pension pot as Corbyn has? Corbyn has managed to profit from his socialism in a way any capitalist would be proud of!
Yet despite all that he doesn't look or behave like a rich man. He has been criticized for wearing the clothes of a tramp, having an allotment, and for making his own Jam.
"On the BBC's Newsnight in 1984, Corbyn was invited to discuss the House of Commons' dress code, during which broadcast Conservative MP Terry Dicks asserted that so-called Labour scruffs (such as Corbyn, who at this time was known for wearing open-necked shirts to the Commons[37]) should be banned from addressing the House unless they maintained higher standards. Corbyn responded, saying that: "It's not a fashion parade, it's not a gentleman's club, it's not a bankers' institute, it's a place where the people are represented." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZsYvkTw4Rg
That's a circular argument which begs the question. I do not accept the premise of the argument that "wearing a tie" somehow means "maintaining higher standards". Wearing a tie means wearing a tie; it means that the person has chosen to wear a tie. It does not mean that he/she is "maintaining higher standards" or "showing respect" or any other similar guff.
Time for the weekly update on my average daily tracking poll.
Hillary 46 -0.5 Trump 42 +1
Since the first update on August 1st.
Hillary 46 46.5 46.5 47 44 Trump 42 41 40.5 41 41
Today Trump is at his best since July 30th, Hillary at her worst since August 1st. Trump has been going up almost everyday since August 15th in my average daily tracker.
At 4 points down he should be approaching the level of ties in most of the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
If that trend continues he'll be ahead by December....
If that trend continues, he'll be up in three weeks, and will have a 30% lead by December.
Leading Labour and being the official opposition leader is not only good for Corbyn's brand of socialism but also his bank balance, what other person with 2 E grade A Levels, no degree and no work experience outside trade unions and the Labour Party would earn £138,000 a year, live in a £600,000 house and have a £2 million pension pot as Corbyn has? Corbyn has managed to profit from his socialism in a way any capitalist would be proud of!
Yet despite all that he doesn't look or behave like a rich man. He has been criticized for wearing the clothes of a tramp, having an allotment, and for making his own Jam.
"On the BBC's Newsnight in 1984, Corbyn was invited to discuss the House of Commons' dress code, during which broadcast Conservative MP Terry Dicks asserted that so-called Labour scruffs (such as Corbyn, who at this time was known for wearing open-necked shirts to the Commons[37]) should be banned from addressing the House unless they maintained higher standards. Corbyn responded, saying that: "It's not a fashion parade, it's not a gentleman's club, it's not a bankers' institute, it's a place where the people are represented." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZsYvkTw4Rg
That's a circular argument which begs the question. I do not accept the premise of the argument that "wearing a tie" somehow means "maintaining higher standards". Wearing a tie means wearing a tie; it means that the person has chosen to wear a tie. It does not mean that he/she is "maintaining higher standards" or "showing respect" or any other similar guff.
I for one would feel that an official Loony candidate was letting the side down if he turned up for a count (or, heaven forbid, for parliament) wearing a simple open-necked shirt instead of an elaborate costume.
Apple and the Irish government are likely to appeal against the ruling.
Anyone else find it slightly amusing that the Irish are thinking of appealing against a ruling that would solve many of their debt problems at a stroke?
Uneasy though I am at the EC sticking its nose into national tax affairs, there are times when I feel Labour have more than a small point about big multinationals taking the piss on tax.
Ireland doesn't really have any debt problems any more. Government debt-to-GDP is now below ours (it was double at its peak), and as the NAMA assets are sold off, it will come down to 50%.
False analogy:
Oirish debt should always be measured against NNI. One Euro in six (of GDP) represents transfers to the Septics.
'According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May told cabinet colleagues that limits on EU migrants “are a priority” for Brexit negotiations, and “work is under way to examine how to reduce the number of international students coming to the UK”. Students from outside the EU are also likely to face tougher visa rules, as the PM is said to want universities to “develop sustainable funding models that are not so dependent on international students”.' http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/10589
Don't understand the rationale for this move.
Because the student visa system is just a back door to a tier 2 visa. Reducing EU student numbers should be a priority, or at least forcing them into the foreign student system and making them pay foreign student fees up front rather than skipping out in student loans.
I'd say that non-EU students are also linked to illegal work and we need to reduce that.
I think this is one of the simplest issues to solve:
- restrict student visas to proper universities - really toughen up the rules on employment of illegal workers (including the 'shop an employer, get yourself residence' rule)
Between them, this would dramatically reduce the number of fake students, and those coming here to secretly get visas. That being said, there are always going to be people who come here to do an MSc in something or another and fall in love and get married. If you let people into your country to do courses, some of them are going to stay.
Proper universities? Proper? You do realise it has been government policy for some years to increase competition and encourage new HE providers?
I think Joff sees things too apocalyptically, and we really do not have a constitiution which dictates that the Opposition must act in any particular way. If Corbyn wins (and I don't think it's quite a done deal, by the way), I expect the Shadow Cabinet to re-form more effectively as most MPs will shrug and make the best of it. If they don't, we would simply have an ineffective opposition due to an explicit choice of the PLP not to listen to the members who chose them as Labour candidates and to undermine the re-elected leadership by refusing to work with it. That is not a problem that Bercow can or will solve (there have been periods of ineffective opposition before), but I don't expect it to happen.
A separate question is whether there will be actual defections. Some, I think, but not very many.
Agreed. Predictions of apocalypse make for better articles than balanced opinion though.
For defections- if you were a Labour MP planning to stand down in 2020 anyway- would that make you more likely to defect?
Presumably those ambitious for their careers would only defect if they thought their prospects were much better in a new party... which is pretty unlikely.
Comments
'Did Theresa May only look good because she was up against the vacuous airhead Andrea Loathsome Leadsom?'
I may use the line, Theresa May = Gordon Brown in kitten heels?
The final ruling, expected on Tuesday, follows a three-year probe into Apple's Irish tax affairs, which the EU has previously found to be illegal. The Financial Times reports that the bill will be for billions of euros, making it Europe's biggest tax penalty.
Apple and the Irish government are likely to appeal against the ruling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37216176
Then I can write to Kevin O'Connor and June Brown telling them a few uncomfortable truths about their lies, rudeness, arrogance, complacency and incompetence and there will be nothing they can do about it.
Uneasy though I am at the EC sticking its nose into national tax affairs, there are times when I feel Labour have more than a small point about big multinationals taking the piss on tax.
However, I rather fear that there may be several issues which are, for want of another perceived solution, put under the "Brexit" umbrella. It's quite a large one; already this morning we have had a switch of freight mode from road to rail; and a new visa control system at UK ports. All in the name of Brexit.
I fear that much will be demanded of Brexit and the reality achieved will, perforce, fall far short of expectations.
If we really do think that all these issues need addressing post-Brexit (and perhaps they do), then perhaps are also realising that our leaving the EU will entail a wholescale reworking of our economy and society.
He was such a great actor, out of the top of my head I remember the Producers, Blazing Saddles, Frankenstein, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the Silver Streak and the Woman in Red
Its like this nice idea of doing a national survey every 10 years and then base all local infrastructure planning on it for the next 10 years.
If Dave came back with a deal involving associate membership he would have likely won. For whatever reason he decided to come back with a blank piece of paper.
Hillary 46 -0.5
Trump 42 +1
Since the first update on August 1st.
Hillary 46 46.5 46.5 47 44
Trump 42 41 40.5 41 41
Today Trump is at his best since July 30th, Hillary at her worst since August 1st.
Trump has been going up almost everyday since August 15th in my average daily tracker.
At 4 points down he should be approaching the level of ties in most of the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
It will be in about a month, since he has gained 2 points in 13 days and he is 4 points down.
Trump is finally airing TV ads:
http://elections.ap.org/content/latest-trump-campaign-plans-10m-ad-buy-coming-week
"The campaign expects the ads to begin airing as soon as Monday in nine states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida, where the campaign has already been on the air, along with New Hampshire, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada. They're all important swing states."
I wonder why Virginia and Colorado are on the list and not Michigan and Oregon who I think might be closer.
Trump for instance hasn't done a single rally in Michigan or Oregon.
I know how much you like to think about Hispanics being all pro Hillary:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195146/clinton-hispanic-advantage-smaller-among-born-hispanics.aspx?g_source=Election 2016&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles
Favourability among Hispanics born in the USA (87% registered to vote)
Hillary 43
Trump 29
Those not born in the USA (28% registered to vote)
Hillary 87
Trump 13
All adults today.
Hillary 38
Trump 33
So Hispanics born in the USA have about the same opinion as the average voter on both nominees, those who are not are loopsided for Hillary but few of them are registered.
That explains the polling in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico favouring Trump more than what you would expect.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110674/Presidential-Debates-Rarely-GameChangers.aspx
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-clinton-poison-conspiracy-227485
The trick out of Brooklyn isn't just to make Hillary Clinton win but to make her win as something other than a brain-damaged crook who stole the election and will spend the next four years selling out the government from her deathbed.
At least he is convincing the public a bit that he is sane so far, since he is letting Hillary take the media spotlight with all the scandals about emails and corruption at her charity foundation, and now Weiner.
Stay low and let your opponent take the flack works.
Negotiating Brexit will come down to who can stay awake through all the boredom and tedium.
Virginia is very difficult, because of 3 things: D.C suburbs, Tim Kaine, and the Washington media playing a big role there.
In Colorado you got 2 things: Lack of a primary to energize voters for Trump, and Bill Kristol in Colorado Springs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN7gDRjTNf4
Hendopolis
I'm a little concerned about the @DailyMirror front page, so I'm going to take it down. #tomorrowspaperstoday
"But the politics are made harder amid the drip-drip revelations from the newly released emails demonstrating the messy overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, which leave even many Clinton-inclined voters wondering what she was really up to and why it’s so hard for her to explain it."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-clinton-poison-conspiracy-227485#ixzz4Il8Ve1EW
Reagan adding some good humour worked, but it was the:
"Are you better today than 4 years ago"
That killed Carter's chances.
Trump can't ask that question, because it's not clear if the answer is YES or NO today.
If he asks it about 16-20 years ago at the time of NAFTA and the dotcom bubble, the answer maybe NO.
See if Trump stays low, the bored media (like another missile) will hone in on another target to shoot.
I believe the phrase "phoning it in" is what the Mirror did over the Bank Holiday Monday.
It reminds me of evil killer teenage girls in thrillers.
Paying off student loans early also reduces your liquidity, in case you have an unanticipated need for cash. Housing deposit? Car? Wedding? Sudden cessation of income - as a former secondary school teacher myself, I was acutely aware that not only is one often but a fall-out with management / poor Ofsted report/ one institutional financial issue away from redundancy (seen colleagues lose their jobs for all three reasons), but one malicious yet credible false allegation away from never being able to work in education again (never saw it personally, but it was the main motivation for paying my union membership!).
Moreover, the threshold aspect of student loan repayments means there is a non-zero probability that unanticipated changes in your lifestyle will result in your repayments dropping to zero or near-zero so that your debt will ultimately be written off and the net present value of your repayment stream (the thing you will save by paying off early) is negligible. There are many possible reasons for dropping your teaching hours, as I saw many former colleagues do. You marry someone rich and become a stay-at-home dad? For health reasons or work-life balance you switch to working part-time? You have to become a full or part-time carer due to someone else's illness or disability? You get fed up of teaching and move to lower-paid work - perhaps lower skilled work, but high-skilled jobs in history writing or the religious and charitable sectors can also have low incomes. Could you write any such scenario off as truly impossible? If there is, say, a 10% chance of this happening, then that's 10% wiped off of the expected present value of your repayment stream, which makes alternative uses of your money more appealing.
Disclaimer: I'm not a financial adviser. But if you are thinking about quite serious four-figure sums of money you ought to think about this one very carefully. Martin Lewis generally advocates not paying them off early, you may or may not find his rationales convincing.
Still, there are reasons to pay off early for some people. One I've heard of is someone with too much cash to claim benefits they would otherwise be entitled to, but who expected to be on a good salary (and to repay in full, one way or the other) in later life.
I suspect there are other scenarios where someone might want to stop student loan repayments being deducted from their salary in order to increase their net income - with a mortgage in mind perhaps?
A separate question is whether there will be actual defections. Some, I think, but not very many.
- restrict student visas to proper universities
- really toughen up the rules on employment of illegal workers (including the 'shop an employer, get yourself residence' rule)
Between them, this would dramatically reduce the number of fake students, and those coming here to secretly get visas. That being said, there are always going to be people who come here to do an MSc in something or another and fall in love and get married. If you let people into your country to do courses, some of them are going to stay.
That's great, right? Top news!
Only downer is that the total you need to overcome is a moving target, with your "tax remaining to be paid" increasing in an inflation-linked manner. But if you're mad keen you can pay off extra tax, to hit that total early.
Now I wonder how that would feel compared to being told you had an "income tax debt" and whether it would change the "early repayment rate"?
https://youtu.be/zNpWBMNyC0w
RR better redouble their efforts against industrial espionage in that case.
Oirish debt should always be measured against NNI. One Euro in six (of GDP) represents transfers to the Septics.
For defections- if you were a Labour MP planning to stand down in 2020 anyway- would that make you more likely to defect?
Presumably those ambitious for their careers would only defect if they thought their prospects were much better in a new party... which is pretty unlikely.