Kingston University (Polytechnic as was) has 20,000 students on roll. It is or appears to be an extraordinarily wealthy institution. It is currently having a new Town House built by Willmott Dixon which will doubtless be costing into the millions.
I'm tempted to wonder how fat organisations like this have grown on fees - about 1/8 of the Kingston roll are overseas students.
There's also the Bank of Mum and Dad to which not everyone will of course have access but the extent to which the loan will be "dealt with" that way has to be considered. My nephew is or will be 17 soon and in doing his four A-levels is already contemplating going to "one of the Russell Group" of Universities. His parents are both the wrong side of 50 and paying for him will, as older parents, mean they will need to work longer and there's a younger sibling who wants to become either a marine biologist or play for Tottenham FC.
As people become parents older the financial relationship with their children affects their own financial outlook as they look toward some form of retirement. Of course with low interest rates and rising house prices most home owners, if they have been sensible and paid off mortgages, will be in a better position but having to support children well beyond what was formerly the case will have ramifications.
Is this actually right, about the Nazis shutting universities? The internet doesn't seem to know about it. They certainly ruined them by expelling Jews and the politically unsound, and replacing them with Nazis, but it isn't the same thing.
I can't say about that, but I've just finished reading R.V. Jones' excellent 'Most Secret War'. In it, he puts a lot of our victory in the radar 'battle of the beams' down to our radio enthusiasts, who could use our somewhat imprecise equipment. Hitler banned amateur radio long before the war, so they did not have a large number of amateur radio experts.
A compulsory grammar test might help to whittle down the numbers somewhat. You wouldn't imagine the number of shockingly poor covering letters I read when helping with a graduate recruitment round...
If you are going through an agency, it might not be the candidates' fault.
Back in the distant past, I was involved in recruiting graduates. When they went through agencies their CVs and any other information would be somewhat anonymised (e.g. to remove address) or rewritten. Since I never once found a 'good' recruiting agency, yet alone a brilliant one, everything we were given had to be taken somewhat at face value.
As an example, it became clear during one interview that the CV we had in front of us did not match the candidate. Fortunately he had brought a copy of his own CV along, and we made a quick trip to the photocopier.
The agency had rewritten his CV to better match the advertised role, and had placed the wrong name on the rewritten CV. I reckon many of the mistakes we saw on CVs were down to the agencies, not the candidates.
Although I did like the candidate who wrote 'I like reading, and enjoy many jeunres'. We actually hired that one, and he turned out to be a darned good engineer.
Yes, agencies were awful about CVs, I always took a spare to interviews.
Next weekend the latest edition of The Sunday Times Good University Guide will reveal huge variations in graduate salary levels. Graduates of Russell Group universities such as Imperial College London, Cambridge and the London School of Economics with degrees in computer science, economics and engineering earn up to £45,000 six months after leaving.
By contrast, the lowest salaries are in institutions dominated by arts subjects. Graduates of Falmouth University earned a median salary in 2016 of £16,800. The lowest salary — of just £12,000 a year — was earned by dance, drama and cinematics graduates at St Mary’s University, Twickenham.
Okay, I’ll put my hand up and admit to going to Aberystwyth!
In my defence I read economics, but they have there an awful lot of agriculture, geography and Welsh Studies students - who probably get more local jobs where salaries are much lower than the British national average.
Next weekend the latest edition of The Sunday Times Good University Guide will reveal huge variations in graduate salary levels. Graduates of Russell Group universities such as Imperial College London, Cambridge and the London School of Economics with degrees in computer science, economics and engineering earn up to £45,000 six months after leaving.
By contrast, the lowest salaries are in institutions dominated by arts subjects. Graduates of Falmouth University earned a median salary in 2016 of £16,800. The lowest salary — of just £12,000 a year — was earned by dance, drama and cinematics graduates at St Mary’s University, Twickenham.
Dr Barry seems to be very confused. Is the complaint that graduates will have to pay off stupendous amounts of debt, or that they won't ("It would be touch and go as to whether even at that salary they would ever repay their full debt")?
The truth is, the interest rate is largely irrelevant, as is the sum advanced. This is a graduate tax in all but name; for a 30-year period, graduates will pay an extra 9% of any income over £21,000. A few might pay less, if they earn massive amounts early on, but for most, that is the deal. The interest rate could be 3% or 20%, it would make no difference to what they pay.
Personally, I think an additional marginal tax rate of 9% on top of our already high marginal tax rates is too much, especially since the existing marginal rates veer around so erratically according to your income. Oddly, though, people complain about the 'debt' and the nominal interest rate, but not about the one figure which really matters.
Dr Barry is right. That paradox shows the crass stupidity of the scheme just in purely political terms. The graduates who do not earn enough to repay the loan *still accrue the debt* to remind them not to vote Conservative, even if they never have to repay it.
Is this actually right, about the Nazis shutting universities? The internet doesn't seem to know about it. They certainly ruined them by expelling Jews and the politically unsound, and replacing them with Nazis, but it isn't the same thing.
Yup, that was my understanding, the universities, both in staff and syllabuses were Nazified except the ones that were already pro-Nazi.
A compulsory grammar test might help to whittle down the numbers somewhat. You wouldn't imagine the number of shockingly poor covering letters I read when helping with a graduate recruitment round...
If you are going through an agency, it might not be the candidates' fault.
Back in the distant past, I was involved in recruiting graduates. When they went through agencies their CVs and any other information would be somewhat anonymised (e.g. to remove address) or rewritten. Since I never once found a 'good' recruiting agency, yet alone a brilliant one, everything we were given had to be taken somewhat at face value.
As an example, it became clear during one interview that the CV we had in front of us did not match the candidate. Fortunately he had brought a copy of his own CV along, and we made a quick trip to the photocopier.
The agency had rewritten his CV to better match the advertised role, and had placed the wrong name on the rewritten CV. I reckon many of the mistakes we saw on CVs were down to the agencies, not the candidates.
Although I did like the candidate who wrote 'I like reading, and enjoy many jeunres'. We actually hired that one, and he turned out to be a darned good engineer.
Yes, agencies were awful about CVs, I always took a spare to interviews.
Have there ever been good recruitment agencies? I sometimes wonder how they ever manage to place anyone anywhere, given their general ineptness, poor communication and tardiness.
So two of the unis that are younger than 560/500 years old are 1 and 2 for the best universities in terms of graduate earnings.
Not surprised about arts subjects not paying well, but I wouldn't say you shouldn't study, for example, history at uni or Fine Art. Not everyone needs to be a lawyer or an engineer.
The Glorious Labour Party introduced tution fees back in 1998.
Well, all three parties believed in no tuition fees when they were in opposition (the Tories, Labour Party and the LibDems).
When in Government, all three parties believed that students should pay tuition fees.
There is actually little difference in the behaviour of the three parties. In the lying contest that is modern politics, all the parties get first prize.
I expect when the Conservatives are next in opposition, they will believe in the abolition of tuition fees again.
I wonder why this might be? Could it be that the economics of paying for this from general taxation are ruinous if 50% of young people go to uni?
Is this actually right, about the Nazis shutting universities? The internet doesn't seem to know about it. They certainly ruined them by expelling Jews and the politically unsound, and replacing them with Nazis, but it isn't the same thing.
Yup, that was my understanding, the universities, both in staff and syllabuses were Nazified except the ones that were already pro-Nazi.
Dr Barry seems to be very confused. Is the complaint that graduates will have to pay off stupendous amounts of debt, or that they won't ("It would be touch and go as to whether even at that salary they would ever repay their full debt")?
The truth is, the interest rate is largely irrelevant, as is the sum advanced. This is a graduate tax in all but name; for a 30-year period, graduates will pay an extra 9% of any income over £21,000. A few might pay less, if they earn massive amounts early on, but for most, that is the deal. The interest rate could be 3% or 20%, it would make no difference to what they pay.
Personally, I think an additional marginal tax rate of 9% on top of our already high marginal tax rates is too much, especially since the existing marginal rates veer around so erratically according to your income. Oddly, though, people complain about the 'debt' and the nominal interest rate, but not about the one figure which really matters.
Dr Barry is right. That paradox shows the crass stupidity of the scheme just in purely political terms. The graduates who do not earn enough to repay the loan *still accrue the debt* to remind them not to vote Conservative, even if they never have to repay it.
That is a very good point. It is a two-pronged irritant: the bad news is you are seriously indebted, and the other bad news that you don't have to repay the debt because you are a penniless loser.
The Glorious Labour Party introduced tution fees back in 1998.
Well, all three parties believed in no tuition fees when they were in opposition (the Tories, Labour Party and the LibDems).
When in Government, all three parties believed that students should pay tuition fees.
There is actually little difference in the behaviour of the three parties. In the lying contest that is modern politics, all the parties get first prize.
I expect when the Conservatives are next in opposition, they will believe in the abolition of tuition fees again.
I wonder why this might be? Could it be that the economics of paying for this from general taxation are ruinous if 50% of young people go to uni?
Especially when the only reason any government wanted 50% to go to university was to massage youth unemployment figures....
Is this actually right, about the Nazis shutting universities? The internet doesn't seem to know about it. They certainly ruined them by expelling Jews and the politically unsound, and replacing them with Nazis, but it isn't the same thing.
Yup, that was my understanding, the universities, both in staff and syllabuses were Nazified except the ones that were already pro-Nazi.
This would be a first. 'Literally Hitler' is always an apposite parallel to make when someone says something one disagrees with, isn't it?
You think there is a difference between (i) shutting a University and (ii) sacking all the professors who are not members of the Nazi party and replacing them with party loyalists.
The net result was the Germans destroyed their Universities.
My view is that university should be very hard to get into, academically
Once you're there, it should remain academically hard, but financially easy.
Remove university status from most of the former polys, and increase more apprenticeships and vocational training.
Also launch a campaign explaining nobody thinks less of you if you don't go to university.
As far back as the second half of the 1960s the former polys were running degree courses under the Council for National Academic Awards umbrella . Some of them were very good - Lanchester - Hatfield - Thames -and Potstmouth Polytechnics spring to mind. It is an error to believe that converting such institutions into universities in the late 80s/early 90s suddenly increased the number of undergraduates . All that really changed was the name of the institution in that the students were already there enrolled on degree courses.
Is this actually right, about the Nazis shutting universities? The internet doesn't seem to know about it. They certainly ruined them by expelling Jews and the politically unsound, and replacing them with Nazis, but it isn't the same thing.
Yup, that was my understanding, the universities, both in staff and syllabuses were Nazified except the ones that were already pro-Nazi.
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
Is this actually right, about the Nazis shutting universities? The internet doesn't seem to know about it. They certainly ruined them by expelling Jews and the politically unsound, and replacing them with Nazis, but it isn't the same thing.
Yup, that was my understanding, the universities, both in staff and syllabuses were Nazified except the ones that were already pro-Nazi.
This would be a first. 'Literally Hitler' is always an apposite parallel to make when someone says something one disagrees with, isn't it?
You think there is a difference between (i) shutting a University and (ii) sacking all the professors who are not members of the Nazi party and replacing them with party loyalists.
The net result was the Germans destroyed their Universities.
I would have (rightly) failed my history degree for making such crass errors.
@PickardJE: hope no one reads anything into fact that David Davis has now lost his permanent secretary, special adviser & two ministers in a few months.
Interesting thread from Dominic Cummings with a prediction about a "rematch" referendum...
It's almost as if he's having a breakdown. Does he think Boris and Gove will dazzle everyone again?
He seems to be saying that it's a political blunder not to lie about the mythical £350m a week. He might be right, I suppose, but the political problemette with his approach is that it would be hard to hide the job losses and chaos of a no-deal Brexit.
1) Someone has to pay for tertiary education. Since not everyone gets one, it seems reasonable that the primary recipient should bear their share of the cost. Since those primary recipients come disproportionately from affluent backgrounds, subsidising this would be an aggregate transfer of wealth from the poorer sections of society to the richer sections.
2) Demand for tertiary education remains high, even with the attached costs. It seems that would-be students see the deal as worthwhile.
3) Britain's big weakness is technical education. Far more effort needs to be put into encouraging it.
4) Some subjects are of particular economic or social advantage to the country (eg nursing). It seems reasonable that the country should bear more or all of the cost of some of these. It should not be beyond the wit of man to devise objective metrics for assessing these.
5) The use of RPI in calculating any element of this debt is an outrage. The government has largely abandoned it elsewhere as not fit for purpose. This is just an opportunity to chisel money.
6) Instead of using RPI (or CPI), fixed interest rates could be set each year, leaving the lender to bear the inflation risk. This would allow students to see more clearly what they were signing up for.
Estimates for the cost of scrapping fees, vary, from around 8bn to 11bn per year.
My view is that university should be very hard to get into, academically
Once you're there, it should remain academically hard, but financially easy.
Remove university status from most of the former polys, and increase more apprenticeships and vocational training.
Also launch a campaign explaining nobody thinks less of you if you don't go to university.
As far back as the second half of the 1960s the former polys were running degree courses under the Council for National Academic Awards umbrella . Some of them were very good - Lanchester - Hatfield - Thames -and Potstmouth Polytechnics spring to mind. It is an error to believe that converting such institutions into universities in the late 80s/early 90s suddenly increased the number of undergraduates . All that really changed was the name of the institution in that the students were already there enrolled on degree courses.
There was a lot of snobbery about CNAA degrees though. Back in the 80s my (boys' grammar) school proudly published each year a list of all the teaching staff with line after line of "MA (Cantab)" and "MA (Oxon)" and a smattering of Scottish and "BA (Dunelm)" and "BA (Lond)". There was one solitary "BA (CNAA)" but the holder was one of the best teachers in the school. The word was that the Head of Geography had had to threaten to resign in order to get the headmaster to agree to that teacher's appointment.
Is this actually right, about the Nazis shutting universities? The internet doesn't seem to know about it. They certainly ruined them by expelling Jews and the politically unsound, and replacing them with Nazis, but it isn't the same thing.
Yup, that was my understanding, the universities, both in staff and syllabuses were Nazified except the ones that were already pro-Nazi.
Is this actually right, about the Nazis shutting universities? The internet doesn't seem to know about it. They certainly ruined them by expelling Jews and the politically unsound, and replacing them with Nazis, but it isn't the same thing.
Yup, that was my understanding, the universities, both in staff and syllabuses were Nazified except the ones that were already pro-Nazi.
This would be a first. 'Literally Hitler' is always an apposite parallel to make when someone says something one disagrees with, isn't it?
You think there is a difference between (i) shutting a University and (ii) sacking all the professors who are not members of the Nazi party and replacing them with party loyalists.
The net result was the Germans destroyed their Universities.
Yes, there is a difference. They are not the same thing, and that is what being different means. You seem to have fallen into the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
1) Someone has to pay for tertiary education. Since not everyone gets one, it seems reasonable that the primary recipient should bear their share of the cost. Since those primary recipients come disproportionately from affluent backgrounds, subsidising this would be an aggregate transfer of wealth from the poorer sections of society to the richer sections.
2) Demand for tertiary education remains high, even with the attached costs. It seems that would-be students see the deal as worthwhile.
3) Britain's big weakness is technical education. Far more effort needs to be put into encouraging it.
4) Some subjects are of particular economic or social advantage to the country (eg nursing). It seems reasonable that the country should bear more or all of the cost of some of these. It should not be beyond the wit of man to devise objective metrics for assessing these.
5) The use of RPI in calculating any element of this debt is an outrage. The government has largely abandoned it elsewhere as not fit for purpose. This is just an opportunity to chisel money.
6) Instead of using RPI (or CPI), fixed interest rates could be set each year, leaving the lender to bear the inflation risk. This would allow students to see more clearly what they were signing up for.
Estimates for the cost of scrapping fees, vary, from around 8bn to 11bn per year.
A 1p raise in income tax raises around £5.5bn (IFS figures).
So, realistically, we are looking at the equivalent of perhaps a 2p income tax rise to cover this.
Given the desperate need for NHS funding and some kind of social care system, I honestly can't see how this can be funded from general taxation.
Perhaps the answer is to turn around to business and saying guys you have to support the future and pay more corporation tax?
I largely agree with the numbers and viewpoint.
Where I do differ is that NHS funding & social care funding (as you say also desperately needed) does primarily benefit the elderly.
Free university education is one of the direct benefits that young people can obtain from the State, and so I'd give a higher weight to intergenerational fairness in the assessment.
I'd try and gradually reduce the numbers going to University to 40 per cent, reduce tuition fees to 3k (at Blair's level) and restore a means-tested grant.
My view is that university should be very hard to get into, academically
Once you're there, it should remain academically hard, but financially easy.
Remove university status from most of the former polys, and increase more apprenticeships and vocational training.
Also launch a campaign explaining nobody thinks less of you if you don't go to university.
As far back as the second half of the 1960s the former polys were running degree courses under the Council for National Academic Awards umbrella . Some of them were very good - Lanchester - Hatfield - Thames -and Potstmouth Polytechnics spring to mind. It is an error to believe that converting such institutions into universities in the late 80s/early 90s suddenly increased the number of undergraduates . All that really changed was the name of the institution in that the students were already there enrolled on degree courses.
When I was doing a professional diploma course in the late 50’s at what later became a Poly there were also students doing an External London degree in the same subject. The were External London degrees in all sorts of subjects all over the country.
Interesting thread from Dominic Cummings with a prediction about a "rematch" referendum...
It's almost as if he's having a breakdown. Does he think Boris and Gove will dazzle everyone again?
He seems to be saying that it's a political blunder not to lie about the mythical £350m a week. He might be right, I suppose, but the political problemette with his approach is that it would be hard to hide the job losses and chaos of a no-deal Brexit.
One for the lawyers here: What’s the calculation of fines for motoring offences these days that gives someone with an 8-figure salary a £170 fine for drinking and driving?
My view is that university should be very hard to get into, academically
Once you're there, it should remain academically hard, but financially easy.
Remove university status from most of the former polys, and increase more apprenticeships and vocational training.
Also launch a campaign explaining nobody thinks less of you if you don't go to university.
As far back as the second half of the 1960s the former polys were running degree courses under the Council for National Academic Awards umbrella . Some of them were very good - Lanchester - Hatfield - Thames -and Potstmouth Polytechnics spring to mind. It is an error to believe that converting such institutions into universities in the late 80s/early 90s suddenly increased the number of undergraduates . All that really changed was the name of the institution in that the students were already there enrolled on degree courses.
When I was doing a professional diploma course in the late 50’s at what later became a Poly there were also students doing an External London degree in the same subject. The were External London degrees in all sorts of subjects all over the country.
Yes, that and also the Open University. Who remembers all the overnight OU programming on BBC2 in the ‘80s and ‘90s?
Perhaps the most beneficial (for all) change the Government could make, would be to fund the OU from taxation, making its courses free to British citizens and residents. Their marginal cost must be pretty low already compared to the fees they charge.
1) Someone has to pay for tertiary education. Since not everyone gets one, it seems reasonable that the primary recipient should bear their share of the cost. Since those primary recipients come disproportionately from affluent backgrounds, subsidising this would be an aggregate transfer of wealth from the poorer sections of society to the richer sections.
2) Demand for tertiary education remains high, even with the attached costs. It seems that would-be students see the deal as worthwhile.
3) Britain's big weakness is technical education. Far more effort needs to be put into encouraging it.
4) Some subjects are of particular economic or social advantage to the country (eg nursing). It seems reasonable that the country should bear more or all of the cost of some of these. It should not be beyond the wit of man to devise objective metrics for assessing these.
5) The use of RPI in calculating any element of this debt is an outrage. The government has largely abandoned it elsewhere as not fit for purpose. This is just an opportunity to chisel money.
6) Instead of using RPI (or CPI), fixed interest rates could be set each year, leaving the lender to bear the inflation risk. This would allow students to see more clearly what they were signing up for.
Agree with all of that.
For 6) I'm fine with it being an extremely advantageous loan, i.e. 0.5% interest/year as I currently pay. That seems a nice balance between the individual and societal benefit to me.
I would like to us see offer similar interest free/low-interest loans for other types of post-secondary education - for instance adult education, shorter computing courses etc.
Essentially give individuals a Personal Education Budget of near zero-interest loans and let them choose whether university really is worth it or whether they would rather spend their cheap loans on vocational courses etc. which could be offered by private providers.
One for the lawyers here: What’s the calculation of fines for motoring offences these days that gives someone with an 8-figure salary a £170 fine for drinking and driving?
I got a £500 fine for speeding a decade and a half ago - based on a week’s next income at the time.
Wasn’t that why the Judge gave him the maximum disqualification and a LOT of community service. Said something about no point in fining him.
I am doubtful about the point of the community service. I expect that as part of his responsibilities as a professional footballer Wayne Rooney already does a lot of work of that type.
My view is that university should be very hard to get into, academically
Once you're there, it should remain academically hard, but financially easy.
Remove university status from most of the former polys, and increase more apprenticeships and vocational training.
Also launch a campaign explaining nobody thinks less of you if you don't go to university.
As far back as the second half of the 1960s the former polys were running degree courses under the Council for National Academic Awards umbrella . Some of them were very good - Lanchester - Hatfield - Thames -and Potstmouth Polytechnics spring to mind. It is an error to believe that converting such institutions into universities in the late 80s/early 90s suddenly increased the number of undergraduates . All that really changed was the name of the institution in that the students were already there enrolled on degree courses.
There was a lot of snobbery about CNAA degrees though. Back in the 80s my (boys' grammar) school proudly published each year a list of all the teaching staff with line after line of "MA (Cantab)" and "MA (Oxon)" and a smattering of Scottish and "BA (Dunelm)" and "BA (Lond)". There was one solitary "BA (CNAA)" but the holder was one of the best teachers in the school. The word was that the Head of Geography had had to threaten to resign in order to get the headmaster to agree to that teacher's appointment.
I think there was some snobbery - though fading quite a bit by the late 70s and early 80s. My main point was that converting Polys into universities did not - in itself - increase the number of undegraduates. It simply led to the end of CNAA degrees.
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
A second referendum campaign would be interesting. This time Leave would have to run on a transparent hard-Brexit ticket; there'd be no scope for obfuscating the matter a second time.
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
They also saw the deal that Cameron got, and what the EU is offering now. It's too easy to make the case that 'they're not our friends, they want our money and they're out to get you'. It doesn't matter whether it's entirely true or not; what would matter would be that it was sufficiently believable to sell to the public.
There's also the fact that we cannot simply go back to the status quo ante as if nothing has happened. The Brexit Event would overshadow Britain's relationship with the EU for years to come if Britain backed out now. As such, the polls are almost certainly understating by some way the likely Leave vote, if we just look at the scores for 'was the UK right to vote to leave?' I would answer 'No' to that question but given a chance to reverse it, would reject that option and endorse the original decision. For all the pain it will cause, going back on it would be worse.
And that's assuming that it's even legally possible to reverse Brexit. At the minimum, it's not something that Britain could do unilaterally.
One for the lawyers here: What’s the calculation of fines for motoring offences these days that gives someone with an 8-figure salary a £170 fine for drinking and driving?
I got a £500 fine for speeding a decade and a half ago - based on a week’s next income at the time.
Wasn’t that why the Judge gave him the maximum disqualification and a LOT of community service. Said something about no point in fining him.
I am doubtful about the point of the community service. I expect that as part of his responsibilities as a professional footballer Wayne Rooney already does a lot of work of that type.
A maximum ban is very fully justified, mind.
Seeing Wayne Rooney litter picking at the roadside might distract drivers of course. There was a seleb who did something similar in New York, wasn’t there?
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
They also saw the deal that Cameron got, and what the EU is offering now. It's too easy to make the case that 'they're not our friends, they want our money and they're out to get you'. It doesn't matter whether it's entirely true or not; what would matter would be that it was sufficiently believable to sell to the public.
There's also the fact that we cannot simply go back to the status quo ante as if nothing has happened. The Brexit Event would overshadow Britain's relationship with the EU for years to come if Britain backed out now. As such, the polls are almost certainly understating by some way the likely Leave vote, if we just look at the scores for 'was the UK right to vote to leave?' I would answer 'No' to that question but given a chance to reverse it, would reject that option and endorse the original decision. For all the pain it will cause, going back on it would be worse.
And that's assuming that it's even legally possible to reverse Brexit. At the minimum, it's not something that Britain could do unilaterally.
We need a court case to find out if Article 50 is reversible.
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
They also saw the deal that Cameron got, and what the EU is offering now. It's too easy to make the case that 'they're not our friends, they want our money and they're out to get you'. It doesn't matter whether it's entirely true or not; what would matter would be that it was sufficiently believable to sell to the public.
There's also the fact that we cannot simply go back to the status quo ante as if nothing has happened. The Brexit Event would overshadow Britain's relationship with the EU for years to come if Britain backed out now. As such, the polls are almost certainly understating by some way the likely Leave vote, if we just look at the scores for 'was the UK right to vote to leave?' I would answer 'No' to that question but given a chance to reverse it, would reject that option and endorse the original decision. For all the pain it will cause, going back on it would be worse.
And that's assuming that it's even legally possible to reverse Brexit. At the minimum, it's not something that Britain could do unilaterally.
We need a court case to find out if Article 50 is reversible.
The last Article 50 court case was awesome.
You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
It'd have to go to the CJEU though, which would limit the opportunities for such judicial merriment.
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
They also saw the deal that Cameron got, and what the EU is offering now. It's too easy to make the case that 'they're not our friends, they want our money and they're out to get you'. It doesn't matter whether it's entirely true or not; what would matter would be that it was sufficiently believable to sell to the public.
There's also the fact that we cannot simply go back to the status quo ante as if nothing has happened. The Brexit Event would overshadow Britain's relationship with the EU for years to come if Britain backed out now. As such, the polls are almost certainly understating by some way the likely Leave vote, if we just look at the scores for 'was the UK right to vote to leave?' I would answer 'No' to that question but given a chance to reverse it, would reject that option and endorse the original decision. For all the pain it will cause, going back on it would be worse.
And that's assuming that it's even legally possible to reverse Brexit. At the minimum, it's not something that Britain could do unilaterally.
We need a court case to find out if Article 50 is reversible.
The last Article 50 court case was awesome.
You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
We tried it once your way, TSE, now you're game for a rematch!
One for the lawyers here: What’s the calculation of fines for motoring offences these days that gives someone with an 8-figure salary a £170 fine for drinking and driving?
I got a £500 fine for speeding a decade and a half ago - based on a week’s next income at the time.
Wasn’t that why the Judge gave him the maximum disqualification and a LOT of community service. Said something about no point in fining him.
I am doubtful about the point of the community service. I expect that as part of his responsibilities as a professional footballer Wayne Rooney already does a lot of work of that type.
A maximum ban is very fully justified, mind.
Seeing Wayne Rooney litter picking at the roadside might distract drivers of course. There was a seleb who did something similar in New York, wasn’t there?
They’ve just started with community service in this part of the world, targeting the local rich kids who drive dangerously.
Like with Rooney there’s no point fining them and a week or two in jail is just a badge of honour. But having all their friends turn up to laugh at them in their yellow bibs and carrying brooms, in the hot summer weather, that’s a serious deterrent for the whole community.
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
They also saw the deal that Cameron got, and what the EU is offering now. It's too easy to make the case that 'they're not our friends, they want our money and they're out to get you'. It doesn't matter whether it's entirely true or not; what would matter would be that it was sufficiently believable to sell to the public.
There's also the fact that we cannot simply go back to the status quo ante as if nothing has happened. The Brexit Event would overshadow Britain's relationship with the EU for years to come if Britain backed out now. As such, the polls are almost certainly understating by some way the likely Leave vote, if we just look at the scores for 'was the UK right to vote to leave?' I would answer 'No' to that question but given a chance to reverse it, would reject that option and endorse the original decision. For all the pain it will cause, going back on it would be worse.
And that's assuming that it's even legally possible to reverse Brexit. At the minimum, it's not something that Britain could do unilaterally.
We need a court case to find out if Article 50 is reversible.
The last Article 50 court case was awesome.
You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
It'd have to go to the CJEU though, which would limit the opportunities for such judicial merriment.
Unless we had a Belgian jurist on the CJEU to tell us how to pronounce De Keyser
My view is that university should be very hard to get into, academically
Once you're there, it should remain academically hard, but financially easy.
Remove university status from most of the former polys, and increase more apprenticeships and vocational training.
Also launch a campaign explaining nobody thinks less of you if you don't go to university.
As far back as the second half of the 1960s the former polys were running degree courses under the Council for National Academic Awards umbrella . Some of them were very good - Lanchester - Hatfield - Thames -and Potstmouth Polytechnics spring to mind. It is an error to believe that converting such institutions into universities in the late 80s/early 90s suddenly increased the number of undergraduates . All that really changed was the name of the institution in that the students were already there enrolled on degree courses.
There was a lot of snobbery about CNAA degrees though. Back in the 80s my (boys' grammar) school proudly published each year a list of all the teaching staff with line after line of "MA (Cantab)" and "MA (Oxon)" and a smattering of Scottish and "BA (Dunelm)" and "BA (Lond)". There was one solitary "BA (CNAA)" but the holder was one of the best teachers in the school. The word was that the Head of Geography had had to threaten to resign in order to get the headmaster to agree to that teacher's appointment.
I think there was some snobbery - though fading quite a bit by the late 70s and early 80s. My main point was that converting Polys into universities did not - in itself - increase the number of undegraduates. It simply led to the end of CNAA degrees.
I took a full-time professional diploma to become a pharmacist. Another option had been to become an articled clerk and end up as a solicitor. I didn’t fancy accountancy, where, like becoming a solicitor, one undertook articles and studied either by post or by day release. I think the same applied to many banking courses and becoming a chartered secretary. A degree was an option for enrty to all these professions, and probably many more, but for whatever reason the part-time study route was popular, and cheaper. Similar arrangements applied in engineering.
One for the lawyers here: What’s the calculation of fines for motoring offences these days that gives someone with an 8-figure salary a £170 fine for drinking and driving?
I got a £500 fine for speeding a decade and a half ago - based on a week’s next income at the time.
Wasn’t that why the Judge gave him the maximum disqualification and a LOT of community service. Said something about no point in fining him.
I am doubtful about the point of the community service. I expect that as part of his responsibilities as a professional footballer Wayne Rooney already does a lot of work of that type.
A maximum ban is very fully justified, mind.
Seeing Wayne Rooney litter picking at the roadside might distract drivers of course. There was a seleb who did something similar in New York, wasn’t there?
Right, I have to go and pick up my eldest children from school. It would be rude of me to leave without dropping an interesting climate change link here first, right? Something for everyone here...
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
A second referendum campaign would be interesting. This time Leave would have to run on a transparent hard-Brexit ticket; there'd be no scope for obfuscating the matter a second time.
I don't accept any of the nonsense put about by posters here that there shouldn't be a second referendum or that our exit is a 'given'. The country should be given a clear choice of the three outcomes that are likely to be available to us.
1) Apologise for wasting everyone's time and rescind Article 50 - the EU would undoubtedly arrange that 'fix' 2) Go for EEA (Swiss/Norway style) with freedom of movement etc 3) Go for WTO and Canada deals with border controls and customs checks
With the first referendum it sounded like there was going to be no downside if voting no so thats what people did. Now we can start to see the true picture people should be given a choice. (A straightforward "first past the post" vote not AV). I despair that our politicians triggered Article 50 as soon as they could before working out what it was they wanted from the negotiations and more importantly whether they were likely to get it!!!
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
They also saw the deal that Cameron got, and what the EU is offering now. It's too easy to make the case that 'they're not our friends, they want our money and they're out to get you'. It doesn't matter whether it's entirely true or not; what would matter would be that it was sufficiently believable to sell to the public.
There's also the fact that we cannot simply go back to the status quo ante as if nothing has happened. The Brexit Event would overshadow Britain's relationship with the EU for years to come if Britain backed out now. As such, the polls are almost certainly understating by some way the likely Leave vote, if we just look at the scores for 'was the UK right to vote to leave?' I would answer 'No' to that question but given a chance to reverse it, would reject that option and endorse the original decision. For all the pain it will cause, going back on it would be worse.
And that's assuming that it's even legally possible to reverse Brexit. At the minimum, it's not something that Britain could do unilaterally.
We need a court case to find out if Article 50 is reversible.
The last Article 50 court case was awesome.
You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
I believe that the author of that clause has said it was intended to be reversible.
Brexit is primarily driven by politics, and not by law or economics (which is why Davis's attempts to question the legal basis for a divorce payment were met with such derision by the EU side and why the leavers' confidence that the interests of the German car industry will ensure a trade deal is reached is misplaced). Reversing article 50 would be a colossal political humiliation for the UK, but I think the EU would welcome it.
With regard to Rooney. Most football clubs give the fines to charity, and I suspect that will happen to Rooney's club fine.His community service will probably be done teaching football to disadvantaged kids.
If Article 50 were reversed without a preceding referendum or another General Election, that would have dramatic repercussions for politics and the faith people have in it. Or don't.
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
A second referendum campaign would be interesting. This time Leave would have to run on a transparent hard-Brexit ticket; there'd be no scope for obfuscating the matter a second time.
I don't accept any of the nonsense put about by posters here that there shouldn't be a second referendum or that our exit is a 'given'. The country should be given a clear choice of the three outcomes that are likely to be available to us.
1) Apologise for wasting everyone's time and rescind Article 50 - the EU would undoubtedly arrange that 'fix' 2) Go for EEA (Swiss/Norway style) with freedom of movement etc 3) Go for WTO and Canada deals with border controls and customs checks
With the first referendum it sounded like there was going to be no downside if voting no so thats what people did. Now we can start to see the true picture people should be given a choice. (A straightforward "first past the post" vote not AV). I despair that our politicians triggered Article 50 as soon as they could before working out what it was they wanted from the negotiations and more importantly whether they were likely to get it!!!
On topic, one of my granddaughters went to Uni in 2007, graduated in 2010 and then did a PGCE. She’s now thinking of returning to Uni to become an Ed.Psych. That’ll be, she expects in 2018
She seems totally unfazed by her debt, although of course she was at Uni before the hike to £9k. It’s just an extra tax as far as she’s concerned.
Her brother, who is two years younger and finished his teacher training a couple of years ago is equally unfazed and is indeed buying a house.
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
A second referendum campaign would be interesting. This time Leave would have to run on a transparent hard-Brexit ticket; there'd be no scope for obfuscating the matter a second time.
I don't accept any of the nonsense put about by posters here that there shouldn't be a second referendum or that our exit is a 'given'. The country should be given a clear choice of the three outcomes that are likely to be available to us.
1) Apologise for wasting everyone's time and rescind Article 50 - the EU would undoubtedly arrange that 'fix' 2) Go for EEA (Swiss/Norway style) with freedom of movement etc 3) Go for WTO and Canada deals with border controls and customs checks
With the first referendum it sounded like there was going to be no downside if voting no so thats what people did. Now we can start to see the true picture people should be given a choice. (A straightforward "first past the post" vote not AV). I despair that our politicians triggered Article 50 as soon as they could before working out what it was they wanted from the negotiations and more importantly whether they were likely to get it!!!
Parsons Green Bomber:
Muslim - yes. Refugee - yes. "Child" - yes. Calais - yes. Terrorist - yes.
EU:
Right to control our own borders - no.
My point is - what makes you think a transparent hard Brexit ticket would lose?
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
They also saw the deal that Cameron got, and what the EU is offering now. It's too easy to make the case that 'they're not our friends, they want our money and they're out to get you'. It doesn't matter whether it's entirely true or not; what would matter would be that it was sufficiently believable to sell to the public.
There's also the fact that we cannot simply go back to the status quo ante as if nothing has happened. The Brexit Event would overshadow Britain's relationship with the EU for years to come if Britain backed out now. As such, the polls are almost certainly understating by some way the likely Leave vote, if we just look at the scores for 'was the UK right to vote to leave?' I would answer 'No' to that question but given a chance to reverse it, would reject that option and endorse the original decision. For all the pain it will cause, going back on it would be worse.
And that's assuming that it's even legally possible to reverse Brexit. At the minimum, it's not something that Britain could do unilaterally.
We need a court case to find out if Article 50 is reversible.
The last Article 50 court case was awesome.
You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
I believe that the author of that clause has said it was intended to be reversible.
Brexit is primarily driven by politics, and not by law or economics (which is why Davis's attempts to question the legal basis for a divorce payment were met with such derision by the EU side and why the leavers' confidence that the interests of the German car industry will ensure a trade deal is reached is misplaced). Reversing article 50 would be a colossal political humiliation for the UK, but I think the EU would welcome it.
There would have to be a huge conciliatory offer to the UK including on free movement for it to have any chance and even then I think we would leave
@PickardJE: hope no one reads anything into fact that David Davis has now lost his permanent secretary, special adviser & two ministers in a few months.
1) Someone has to pay for tertiary education. Since not everyone gets one, it seems reasonable that the primary recipient should bear their share of the cost. Since those primary recipients come disproportionately from affluent backgrounds, subsidising this would be an aggregate transfer of wealth from the poorer sections of society to the richer sections.
2) Demand for tertiary education remains high, even with the attached costs. It seems that would-be students see the deal as worthwhile.
3) Britain's big weakness is technical education. Far more effort needs to be put into encouraging it.
4) Some subjects are of particular economic or social advantage to the country (eg nursing). It seems reasonable that the country should bear more or all of the cost of some of these. It should not be beyond the wit of man to devise objective metrics for assessing these.
5) The use of RPI in calculating any element of this debt is an outrage. The government has largely abandoned it elsewhere as not fit for purpose. This is just an opportunity to chisel money.
6) Instead of using RPI (or CPI), fixed interest rates could be set each year, leaving the lender to bear the inflation risk. This would allow students to see more clearly what they were signing up for.
Estimates for the cost of scrapping fees, vary, from around 8bn to 11bn per year.
A 1p raise in income tax raises around £5.5bn (IFS figures).
So, realistically, we are looking at the equivalent of perhaps a 2p income tax rise to cover this.
Given the desperate need for NHS funding and some kind of social care system, I honestly can't see how this can be funded from general taxation.
Perhaps the answer is to turn around to business and saying guys you have to support the future and pay more corporation tax?
Free market in university fees would provide genuine differential but politically undoable.
Cap is worst system because incentive is for everyone to charge the cap (otherwise they are signalling they are poor quality)
Need to focus state resources on courses that matter (whether social or economic or pure academic per @AlastairMeeks definitions).
Propose no state loans for fees - if people want to go to university they should fund privately. State then uses general taxes to achieve government objectives (encouraging certain courses, means blind for value added courses etc).
So two of the unis that are younger than 560/500 years old are 1 and 2 for the best universities in terms of graduate earnings.
Not surprised about arts subjects not paying well, but I wouldn't say you shouldn't study, for example, history at uni or Fine Art. Not everyone needs to be a lawyer or an engineer.
I am sure that Dr Monk is a fine dermatologist but he is making a very simple error. Only the most highly paid will actually pay back the student loan. For everyone else it is a tax of 9% on income above £21000 a year for thirty years after graduation. The actual size of a person's debt is completely irrelevant to what they are going to pay. As in my day we paid 33% basic rate, I struggle to feel too much sympathy for people paying 29%.
I am sure that Dr Monk is a fine dermatologist but he is making a very simple error. Only the most highly paid will actually pay back the student loan. For everyone else it is a tax of 9% on income above £21000 a year for thirty years after graduation. The actual size of a person's debt is completely irrelevant to what they are going to pay. As in my day we paid 33% basic rate, I struggle to feel too much sympathy for people paying 29%.
I would imagine that 'in your day' VAT was less than 20%?
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
They also saw the deal that Cameron got, and what the EU is offering now. It's too easy to make the case that 'they're not our friends, they want our money and they're out to get you'. It doesn't matter whether it's entirely true or not; what would matter would be that it was sufficiently believable to sell to the public.
There's also the fact that we cannot simply go back to the status quo ante as if nothing has happened. The Brexit Event would overshadow Britain's relationship with the EU for years to come if Britain backed out now. As such, the polls are almost certainly understating by some way the likely Leave vote, if we just look at the scores for 'was the UK right to vote to leave?' I would answer 'No' to that question but given a chance to reverse it, would reject that option and endorse the original decision. For all the pain it will cause, going back on it would be worse.
And that's assuming that it's even legally possible to reverse Brexit. At the minimum, it's not something that Britain could do unilaterally.
We need a court case to find out if Article 50 is reversible.
The last Article 50 court case was awesome.
You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
I believe that the author of that clause has said it was intended to be reversible.
Brexit is primarily driven by politics, and not by law or economics (which is why Davis's attempts to question the legal basis for a divorce payment were met with such derision by the EU side and why the leavers' confidence that the interests of the German car industry will ensure a trade deal is reached is misplaced). Reversing article 50 would be a colossal political humiliation for the UK, but I think the EU would welcome it.
What it was intended to be and what it actually is may be two different things. Apart from the loophole of 'indefinite postponement', the logic and the text of A50 clearly (to me) imply that it can't be reversed. There's no mechanism defined to withdraw a notification but the process is clearly laid out as to what happens when notification is given.
If Article 50 were reversed without a preceding referendum or another General Election, that would have dramatic repercussions for politics and the faith people have in it. Or don't.
Agreed. But a very mild form of Brexit along the Norway lines would be fine.
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
They at certainly understating by some way the likely Leave vote, if we just look at the scores for 'was the UK right to vote to leave?' I would answer 'No' to that question but given a chance to reverse it, would reject that option and endorse the original decision. For all the pain it will cause, going back on it would be worse.
And that's assuming that it's even legally possible to reverse Brexit. At the minimum, it's not something that Britain could do unilaterally.
We need a court case to find out if Article 50 is reversible.
The last Article 50 court case was awesome.
You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
I believe that the author of that clause has said it was intended to be reversible.
Brexit is primarily driven by politics, and not by law or economics (which is why Davis's attempts to question the legal basis for a divorce payment were met with such derision by the EU side and why the leavers' confidence that the interests of the German car industry will ensure a trade deal is reached is misplaced). Reversing article 50 would be a colossal political humiliation for the UK, but I think the EU would welcome it.
What it was intended to be and what it actually is may be two different things. Apart from the loophole of 'indefinite postponement', the logic and the text of A50 clearly (to me) imply that it can't be reversed. There's no mechanism defined to withdraw a notification but the process is clearly laid out as to what happens when notification is given.
Well we are still part of an organisation that decides things amongst its members so the fact that it seems to be irreversible shouldn't matter as the EU can create a statute whereby it is reversible.
Not that I want to reverse it. First we are hugely unlikely to get Dave's deal, and secondly it would be a huge humiliation which I think is undoable. This latter is the political barrier, not the EU small print.
My view is that university should be very hard to get into, academically
Once you're there, it should remain academically hard, but financially easy.
Remove university status from most of the former polys, and increase more apprenticeships and vocational training.
Also launch a campaign explaining nobody thinks less of you if you don't go to university.
As far back as the second half of the 1960s the former polys were running degree courses under the Council for National Academic Awards umbrella . Some of them were very good - Lanchester - Hatfield - Thames -and Potstmouth Polytechnics spring to mind. It is an error to believe that converting such institutions into universities in the late 80s/early 90s suddenly increased the number of undergraduates . All that really changed was the name of the institution in that the students were already there enrolled on degree courses.
When I was doing a professional diploma course in the late 50’s at what later became a Poly there were also students doing an External London degree in the same subject. The were External London degrees in all sorts of subjects all over the country.
I started teaching at a Poly in 1969 which included external London degrees. Two years later we started our own degrees under the CNAA regime - and they were superior in all aspects.
So, Vote Leave offering 'plenty more' lies. Their problem is that by then people will have seen what has already happened and what is happening.They'll have seen the deal that Theresa and Boris have got. The trick won't work a second time.
They also saw the deal that Cameron got, and what the EU is offering now. It's too easy to make the case that 'they're not our friends, they want our money and they're out to get you'. It doesn't matter whether it's entirely true or not; what would matter would be that it was sufficiently believable to sell to the public.
There's also the fact that we cannot simply go back to the status quo ante as if nothing has happened. The Brexit Event would overshadow Britain's relationship with the EU for years to come if Britain backed out now. As such, the polls are almost certainly understating by some way the likely Leave vote, if we just look at the scores for 'was the UK right to vote to leave?' I would answer 'No' to that question but given a chance to reverse it, would reject that option and endorse the original decision. For all the pain it will cause, going back on it would be worse.
And that's assuming that it's even legally possible to reverse Brexit. At the minimum, it's not something that Britain could do unilaterally.
We need a court case to find out if Article 50 is reversible.
The last Article 50 court case was awesome.
You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
It'd have to go to the CJEU though, which would limit the opportunities for such judicial merriment.
Unless we had a Belgian jurist on the CJEU to tell us how to pronounce De Keyser
Angry Scotland went for funny and landed on lame. Angry Salmond and its unwelcome reincarnation have always sucked.
Perhaps you could give some examples of your contributions elsewhere so I can judge whether you've always sucked. It would be harsh to draw that conclusion from just two posts.
My view is that university should be very hard to get into, academically
Once you're there, it should remain academically hard, but financially easy.
Remove university status from most of the former polys, and increase more apprenticeships and vocational training.
Also launch a campaign explaining nobody thinks less of you if you don't go to university.
As far back as the second half of the 1960s the former polys were running degree courses under the Council for National Academic Awards umbrella . Some of them were very good - Lanchester - Hatfield - Thames -and Potstmouth Polytechnics spring to mind. It is an error to believe that converting such institutions into universities in the late 80s/early 90s suddenly increased the number of undergraduates . All that really changed was the name of the institution in that the students were already there enrolled on degree courses.
When I was doing a professional diploma course in the late 50’s at what later became a Poly there were also students doing an External London degree in the same subject. The were External London degrees in all sorts of subjects all over the country.
I started teaching at a Poly in 1969 which included external London degrees. Two years later we started our own degrees under the CNAA regime - and they were superior in all aspects.
While I’m not disagreeing, that’s a fairly sweeping statement. However, my point was that there were ‘undergraduates’ in all sorts of establishments prior to the establishment of all the new Unis.
Well we are still part of an organisation that decides things amongst its members so the fact that it seems to be irreversible shouldn't matter as the EU can create a statute whereby it is reversible.
Not that I want to reverse it. First we are hugely unlikely to get Dave's deal, and secondly it would be a huge humiliation which I think is undoable. This latter is the political barrier, not the EU small print.
It's undoubtedly reversible with the consent of all 28 countries, since membership exists by treaty and so the signatories to the treaty can decide what they like. The issue is: how easily could that be done, in what timescale, and with what formalities? For example, would it require an Irish referendum, and would the German supreme court cause difficulties? In practice, it would probably require consent by the European parliament as well.
Admittedly, it should be easier to get consent to extend the Article 50 deadline whilst these formalities were completed, but that would still require unanimity and is therefore unpredictable. In addition, as you point out we'd almost certainly get a worse deal than we had before - no rebate, no Dave's deal, probably fewer opt-outs. There would have to be some serious haggling, with various players seeing an opportunity to grab some pork from the barrel.
So, theoretically possible, but not easy in practice, and with no guarantee of success. As you say, also politically very problematic. Meanwhile the clock ticks. Personally I think it's a non-starter as an idea.
He is wrong because his position is predicated on the idea we would leave the EU and then join EFTA at a later date. If we negotiated rejoicing EFTA as part of the process of leaving the EU that would not apply. Just as it didn't with those countries who went the other way.
Your consistent position has been that we could do this whether the EU liked it or not. We couldn't.
Yes we could. Nothing you have posted has disproved that.
Comments
Kingston University (Polytechnic as was) has 20,000 students on roll. It is or appears to be an extraordinarily wealthy institution. It is currently having a new Town House built by Willmott Dixon which will doubtless be costing into the millions.
I'm tempted to wonder how fat organisations like this have grown on fees - about 1/8 of the Kingston roll are overseas students.
There's also the Bank of Mum and Dad to which not everyone will of course have access but the extent to which the loan will be "dealt with" that way has to be considered. My nephew is or will be 17 soon and in doing his four A-levels is already contemplating going to "one of the Russell Group" of Universities. His parents are both the wrong side of 50 and paying for him will, as older parents, mean they will need to work longer and there's a younger sibling who wants to become either a marine biologist or play for Tottenham FC.
As people become parents older the financial relationship with their children affects their own financial outlook as they look toward some form of retirement. Of course with low interest rates and rising house prices most home owners, if they have been sensible and paid off mortgages, will be in a better position but having to support children well beyond what was formerly the case will have ramifications.
(And yes, I do mean amateur experts).
By contrast, the lowest salaries are in institutions dominated by arts subjects. Graduates of Falmouth University earned a median salary in 2016 of £16,800. The lowest salary — of just £12,000 a year — was earned by dance, drama and cinematics graduates at St Mary’s University, Twickenham.
Now, I must go and cook dinner and do the hoovering.
In my defence I read economics, but they have there an awful lot of agriculture, geography and Welsh Studies students - who probably get more local jobs where salaries are much lower than the British national average.
https://twitter.com/dreamteamfc/status/909740081384165376
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/universities-in-nazi-germany/
Not surprised about arts subjects not paying well, but I wouldn't say you shouldn't study, for example, history at uni or Fine Art. Not everyone needs to be a lawyer or an engineer.
https://twitter.com/odysseanproject/status/909783601616707585
This would be a first. 'Literally Hitler' is always an apposite parallel to make when someone says something one disagrees with, isn't it?
https://twitter.com/odysseanproject/status/909769179376603136
The net result was the Germans destroyed their Universities.
Ever? Hell's Bells, some people need history lessons.
https://twitter.com/DRUDGE_REPORT/status/909161244778577921
See, for example: https://andrewmcgettigan.org/2017/05/12/the-cost-of-abolishing-tuition-fees/
A 1p raise in income tax raises around £5.5bn (IFS figures).
So, realistically, we are looking at the equivalent of perhaps a 2p income tax rise to cover this.
Given the desperate need for NHS funding and some kind of social care system, I honestly can't see how this can be funded from general taxation.
Perhaps the answer is to turn around to business and saying guys you have to support the future and pay more corporation tax?
As an aside, I hate the term grammar nazi. Do those who use it call markers and teachers 'accuracy Nazis'?
Where I do differ is that NHS funding & social care funding (as you say also desperately needed) does primarily benefit the elderly.
Free university education is one of the direct benefits that young people can obtain from the State, and so I'd give a higher weight to intergenerational fairness in the assessment.
I'd try and gradually reduce the numbers going to University to 40 per cent, reduce tuition fees to 3k (at Blair's level) and restore a means-tested grant.
Wasn’t that why the Judge gave him the maximum disqualification and a LOT of community service. Said something about no point in fining him.
Perhaps the most beneficial (for all) change the Government could make, would be to fund the OU from taxation, making its courses free to British citizens and residents. Their marginal cost must be pretty low already compared to the fees they charge.
For 6) I'm fine with it being an extremely advantageous loan, i.e. 0.5% interest/year as I currently pay. That seems a nice balance between the individual and societal benefit to me.
I would like to us see offer similar interest free/low-interest loans for other types of post-secondary education - for instance adult education, shorter computing courses etc.
Essentially give individuals a Personal Education Budget of near zero-interest loans and let them choose whether university really is worth it or whether they would rather spend their cheap loans on vocational courses etc. which could be offered by private providers.
A maximum ban is very fully justified, mind.
Brexit means Brexit.
Nothing has changed.
Truly a brilliant political communicator.
Can't believe it's already been three years!
Can't believe it's already been three years!
I'll never vote for him.
There's also the fact that we cannot simply go back to the status quo ante as if nothing has happened. The Brexit Event would overshadow Britain's relationship with the EU for years to come if Britain backed out now. As such, the polls are almost certainly understating by some way the likely Leave vote, if we just look at the scores for 'was the UK right to vote to leave?' I would answer 'No' to that question but given a chance to reverse it, would reject that option and endorse the original decision. For all the pain it will cause, going back on it would be worse.
And that's assuming that it's even legally possible to reverse Brexit. At the minimum, it's not something that Britain could do unilaterally.
The last Article 50 court case was awesome.
You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
It was an intergenerational f*ckover.
https://twitter.com/odysseanproject/status/909796154258411521
TSE, I'm laughing at the superior intellect!
Like with Rooney there’s no point fining them and a week or two in jail is just a badge of honour. But having all their friends turn up to laugh at them in their yellow bibs and carrying brooms, in the hot summer weather, that’s a serious deterrent for the whole community.
https://www.thenational.ae/uae/transport/community-service-is-way-to-deter-reckless-drivers-motorists-and-experts-agree-1.611219
https://www.thenational.ae/uae/reckless-drivers-made-to-sweep-streets-and-man-petrol-pumps-by-abu-dhabi-court-1.565015
A degree was an option for enrty to all these professions, and probably many more, but for whatever reason the part-time study route was popular, and cheaper.
Similar arrangements applied in engineering.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/this-study-says-we-might-actually-avoid-catastrophic
1) Apologise for wasting everyone's time and rescind Article 50 - the EU would undoubtedly arrange that 'fix'
2) Go for EEA (Swiss/Norway style) with freedom of movement etc
3) Go for WTO and Canada deals with border controls and customs checks
With the first referendum it sounded like there was going to be no downside if voting no so thats what people did. Now we can start to see the true picture people should be given a choice. (A straightforward "first past the post" vote not AV). I despair that our politicians triggered Article 50 as soon as they could before working out what it was they wanted from the negotiations and more importantly whether they were likely to get it!!!
https://twitter.com/EuroGuido/status/909794654928941056
Brexit is primarily driven by politics, and not by law or economics (which is why Davis's attempts to question the legal basis for a divorce payment were met with such derision by the EU side and why the leavers' confidence that the interests of the German car industry will ensure a trade deal is reached is misplaced). Reversing article 50 would be a colossal political humiliation for the UK, but I think the EU would welcome it.
Most football clubs give the fines to charity, and I suspect that will happen to Rooney's club fine.His community service will probably be done teaching football to disadvantaged kids.
She seems totally unfazed by her debt, although of course she was at Uni before the hike to £9k. It’s just an extra tax as far as she’s concerned.
Her brother, who is two years younger and finished his teacher training a couple of years ago is equally unfazed and is indeed buying a house.
Muslim - yes.
Refugee - yes.
"Child" - yes.
Calais - yes.
Terrorist - yes.
EU:
Right to control our own borders - no.
My point is - what makes you think a transparent hard Brexit ticket would lose?
Cap is worst system because incentive is for everyone to charge the cap (otherwise they are signalling they are poor quality)
Need to focus state resources on courses that matter (whether social or economic or pure academic per @AlastairMeeks definitions).
Propose no state loans for fees - if people want to go to university they should fund privately. State then uses general taxes to achieve government objectives (encouraging certain courses, means blind for value added courses etc).
https://twitter.com/AngryScotland/status/909777762562527233
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/909808261133750272
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/909808760083935233
Not that I want to reverse it. First we are hugely unlikely to get Dave's deal, and secondly it would be a huge humiliation which I think is undoable. This latter is the political barrier, not the EU small print.
Can't believe it's already been three years!
Admittedly, it should be easier to get consent to extend the Article 50 deadline whilst these formalities were completed, but that would still require unanimity and is therefore unpredictable. In addition, as you point out we'd almost certainly get a worse deal than we had before - no rebate, no Dave's deal, probably fewer opt-outs. There would have to be some serious haggling, with various players seeing an opportunity to grab some pork from the barrel.
So, theoretically possible, but not easy in practice, and with no guarantee of success. As you say, also politically very problematic. Meanwhile the clock ticks. Personally I think it's a non-starter as an idea.