How would it, given DUP would presumably vote against as would soft Tories (and all Opposition parties).
We would then have a constitutional and financial crisis, hurtling toward No Deal with no obvious solution in sight.
No - a Mayite fudge that resembles EEA+CU is the ONLY deal that can be agreed with EU and approved by Parliament.
There would probably not time for anything to happen if May’s deal is voted down. May resigns. A Leaver would take over. They would offer the EU a choice between CETA with no backstop or no deal. Which is what May should be doing now.
If the EU accept, there will be a short delay in A50 to get it done. If they refuse, there is no deal. In neither scenario would the DUP be upset - Leavers have no intention of accepting the backstop.
If May got Chequers agreed by the EU basically unamended, she would still probably lose in the HoC but she might have a chance. But May’s sellout fudge will be voted down. Easily. The moment she concedes on the customs partnership and agrees the customs union it is all over. No trade policy is a red line for plenty of Tories.
Why would the EU accept, and even extend A50? Brexiters would need to definitively resolve the Irish border issue which they have completely failed to do so far.
Simply saying the Irish border is not an issue does not mean it is no longer an issue.
It is not an issue and not the UK’s job to resolve it.
If the EU insist on the NI backstop, there will be no deal. If they want to be sensible, it can be solved. But after no deal there is going to be a soft border whether they like it or not and at that time their leverage is gone. That is why no deal is probably the best tactical outcome for the UK.
As I said, saying it is not an issue doesn’t make it go away.
Why would a No Deal (the Hardest of Brexits) mean a soft border?
Because the UK will not impose a hard border - they will simply say that they are content to recognise EU compliant goods. And the ROI will not unilaterally impose a border because they will look ridiculous. So the customs services of UK and ROI will simply have no choice but to co-operate to put in place exactly the soft border systems that the ERG have suggested.
That is why the NI border issue has always been a bluff. Time to call.
This is a massively high risk gambit.
More likely to me, such a course of action would likely create a civil emergency. It would lead to No Deal and a state of economic chaos.
Reading both sets of comments , it did not strike me that a firm commitment to writing off all debt had been made. 'Ambition' is far from that - and Corbyn did specifically refer to extending repayment periods etc. I would,however, be surprised if the commitment to abolish Tuition Fees were to be abandoned.
Of course, the people with tuition fees in 2017 (the very ones who were enthused) will be the ones with tuition fee debt in 2022.
They will have passed from the group of people who will benefit from Corbyn to the group of people left behind. We will hear from them in 2022.
The golden rule in politics is you always hear more from the losers than the winners.
If you make tuition fees free, and then fail to write off the debt of earlier generations who were unlucky when they went to University, then you have created many more losers than winners. The losers will be only to ready to gripe publicly on air and on TV.
At a human level I must say I do feel sorry for her, and some respect. Most PMs give the impression that they're enjoying themselves a bit - Cameron was serene, Brown saw himself as sturdy saviour, Blair loved trying to change opinion, Douglas Home had nothing to prove. But May seems to be just morosely struggling on out of a sense of duty. There are worse things in politics.
Historians will have fun debating whether May was an unlucky PM or not.
She doesn't seem to have much as far as I can see.
But I agree, on a human level, one feels sympathy. Who hasn't had a big event or presentation and felt that horrible tickle in the back of the throat two days before and gone 'Oh no.'?
I suspect that it is a combination of nerves and ACE inhibitors. a nagging cough is a fairly frequent side effect, and they are the preferred anti hypertensives for diabetics.
Morphines are very good cough suppressants, and would most likely work, perhaps at risk of aTrainspotting type speech.
Interesting. But turns on ones definition of miracle. Are they saying divine intervention to overturn the laws of physics? Or the more commonly used definition of a highly unlikely but just about plausible event? Such as it is a miracle Leicester won the Premier League, or it is a miracle that Corbyn became leader. In these days where most grow up without a religious education, I would suspect the latter.
One of my favourite examples was in my confirmation class discussing the miracle of the 5 loaves and the 2 fishes. The miracle was that everyone had brought their own food but when the example of sharing was given everyone shared and there was then enough for everyone with plenty left over.
Reading both sets of comments , it did not strike me that a firm commitment to writing off all debt had been made. 'Ambition' is far from that - and Corbyn did specifically refer to extending repayment periods etc. I would,however, be surprised if the commitment to abolish Tuition Fees were to be abandoned.
Of course, the people with tuition fees in 2017 (the very ones who were enthused) will be the ones with tuition fee debt in 2022.
They will have passed from the group of people who will benefit from Corbyn to the group of people left behind. We will hear from them in 2022.
The golden rule in politics is you always hear more from the losers than the winners.
If you make tuition fees free, and then fail to write off the debt of earlier generations who were uniquely unlucky when they went to University, then you have created many more losers than winners. The losers will be only to ready to gripe publicly on air and on TV.
Yes, and each election makes that stitched up cohort bigger.
Fox jr is in that cohort, and doesn't want others in it, but some sort of writedown is needed. It is going to be bigger and harder the longer it is left.
Write it all off for domestic students, and bring down the higher rate tax threshold.
How would it, given DUP would presumably vote against as would soft Tories (and all Opposition parties).
We would then have a constitutional and financial crisis, hurtling toward No Deal with no obvious solution in sight.
No - a Mayite fudge that resembles EEA+CU is the ONLY deal that can be agreed with EU and approved by Parliament.
There would probably not time for anything to happen if May’s deal is voted down. May resigns. A Leaver would take over. They would offer the EU a choice between CETA with no backstop or no deal. Which is what May should be doing now.
If the EU accept, there will be a short delay in A50 to get it done. If they refuse, there is no deal. In neither scenario would the DUP be upset - Leavers have no intention of accepting the backstop.
If May got Chequers agreed by the EU basically unamended, she would still probably lose in the HoC but she might have a chance. But May’s sellout fudge will be voted down. Easily. The moment she concedes on the customs partnership and agrees the customs union it is all over. No trade policy is a red line for plenty of Tories.
Why would the EU accept, and even extend A50? Brexiters would need to definitively resolve the Irish border issue which they have completely failed to do so far.
Simply saying the Irish border is not an issue does not mean it is no longer an issue.
It is not an issue and not the UK’s job to resolve it.
If the EU insist on the NI backstop, there will be no deal. If they want to be sensible, it can be solved. But after no deal there is going to be a soft border whether they like it or not and at that time their leverage is gone. That is why no deal is probably the best tactical outcome for the UK.
As I said, saying it is not an issue doesn’t make it go away.
Why would a No Deal (the Hardest of Brexits) mean a soft border?
Because the UK will not impose a hard border - they will simply say that they are content to recognise EU compliant goods. And the ROI will not unilaterally impose a border because they will look ridiculous. So the customs services of UK and ROI will simply have no choice but to co-operate to put in place exactly the soft border systems that the ERG have suggested.
That is why the NI border issue has always been a bluff. Time to call.
This is a massively high risk gambit.
More likely to me, such a course of action would likely create a civil emergency. It would lead to No Deal and a state of economic chaos.
Archer lives in Australia. Why would he care about that?
It's quite entertaing to watch all the Mercedes fans who whinged endlessly about Ferrari team orders tying themselves in knots about how Mercedes are quite right to use them themselves to let a slower car in front of a faster car...
There are some of us who whinge about team orders, irrespective of where they originate. That said, I do understand it’s a business as much as a sport.
Not a fan of them myself.
I just think the contortions are amusing.
Given your reports of the contortions you engage in with your organ.....
I never perform contortions on the organ. Lots of nice combination buttons for me to use. That means I always come in hole...
I’m told that finding the button can sometimes be difficult for solo organists...
IF May fudges, as we both expect, and she is voted down by an unholy alliance of the ERG and Labour, what happens next?
She would be presumably be replaced by a Harder Brexiter - Davis, Johnson, or perhaps Javid, and a swing to CETA+ - however that still needs to get through Parliament.
How would it, given DUP would presumably vote against as would soft Tories (and all Opposition parties).
We would then have a constitutional and financial crisis, hurtling toward No Deal with no obvious solution in sight.
No - a Mayite fudge that resembles EEA+CU is the ONLY deal that can be agreed with EU and approved by Parliament.
There would probably not time for anything to happen if May’s deal is voted down. May resigns. A Leaver would take over. They would offer the EU a choice between CETA with no backstop or no deal. Which is what May should be doing now.
If the EU accept, there will be a short delay in A50 to get it done. If they refuse, there is no deal. In neither scenario would the DUP be upset - Leavers have no intention of accepting the backstop.
If May got Chequers agreed by the EU basically unamended, she would still probably lose in the HoC but she might have a chance. But May’s sellout fudge will be voted down. Easily. The moment she concedes on the customs partnership and agrees the customs union it is all over. No trade policy is a red line for plenty of Tories.
Why would the EU accept, and even extend A50? Brexiters would need to definitively resolve the Irish border issue which they have completely failed to do so far.
Simply saying the Irish border is not an issue does not mean it is no longer an issue.
It is not an issue and not the UK’s job to resolve it.
If the EU insist on the NI backstop, there will be no deal. If they want to be sensible, it can be solved. But after no deal there is going to be a soft border whether they like it or not and at that time their leverage is gone. That is why no deal is probably the best tactical outcome for the UK.
As I said, saying it is not an issue doesn’t make it go away.
Why would a No Deal (the Hardest of Brexits) mean a soft border?
It's not an issue. If we refuse to deal with it and Ireland refuses to have a border then what happens next?
F1: rather more interesting race than last year. Although the Red Bull idea didn't come off, my thinking was proved right (namely they'd slice their way through the field so 67 for them to top score was too long).
It's quite entertaing to watch all the Mercedes fans who whinged endlessly about Ferrari team orders tying themselves in knots about how Mercedes are quite right to use them themselves to let a slower car in front of a faster car...
There are some of us who whinge about team orders, irrespective of where they originate. That said, I do understand it’s a business as much as a sport.
Not a fan of them myself.
I just think the contortions are amusing.
Given your reports of the contortions you engage in with your organ.....
I never perform contortions on the organ. Lots of nice combination buttons for me to use. That means I always come in hole...
I’m told that finding the button can sometimes be difficult for solo organists...
I have had no complaints while playing duets though.
Reading both sets of comments , it did not strike me that a firm commitment to writing off all debt had been made. 'Ambition' is far from that - and Corbyn did specifically refer to extending repayment periods etc. I would,however, be surprised if the commitment to abolish Tuition Fees were to be abandoned.
Of course, the people with tuition fees in 2017 (the very ones who were enthused) will be the ones with tuition fee debt in 2022.
They will have passed from the group of people who will benefit from Corbyn to the group of people left behind. We will hear from them in 2022.
The golden rule in politics is you always hear more from the losers than the winners.
If you make tuition fees free, and then fail to write off the debt of earlier generations who were unlucky when they went to University, then you have created many more losers than winners. The losers will be only to ready to gripe publicly on air and on TV.
Which is why Corbyn will just pretend he will write off the debt again. Worked last time and there would be even more winners from that next time.
Numbers won't add up but since when have they cared about that?
Interesting. But turns on ones definition of miracle. Are they saying divine intervention to overturn the laws of physics? Or the more commonly used definition of a highly unlikely but just about plausible event? Such as it is a miracle Leicester won the Premier League, or it is a miracle that Corbyn became leader. In these days where most grow up without a religious education, I would suspect the latter.
One of my favourite examples was in my confirmation class discussing the miracle of the 5 loaves and the 2 fishes. The miracle was that everyone had brought their own food but when the example of sharing was given everyone shared and there was then enough for everyone with plenty left over.
Though like most miracles and healings in the Gospels is much more meaningful when interpreted in a metaphorical rather than literal way.
Which is the better lesson?
1) When Jesus is giving a sermon, don't bother packing lunch
or 2) When following Jesus, there will be sustenance in abundance, even for those who possess nothing..
Reading both sets of comments , it did not strike me that a firm commitment to writing off all debt had been made. 'Ambition' is far from that - and Corbyn did specifically refer to extending repayment periods etc. I would,however, be surprised if the commitment to abolish Tuition Fees were to be abandoned.
Of course, the people with tuition fees in 2017 (the very ones who were enthused) will be the ones with tuition fee debt in 2022.
They will have passed from the group of people who will benefit from Corbyn to the group of people left behind. We will hear from them in 2022.
The golden rule in politics is you always hear more from the losers than the winners.
If you make tuition fees free, and then fail to write off the debt of earlier generations who were unlucky when they went to University, then you have created many more losers than winners. The losers will be only to ready to gripe publicly on air and on TV.
I understand that point - though suspect that the losers will still be more inclined to blame those who imposed the debt on them in the first place - ie the Tories and Libdems. Similar resentment is likely from those parents who were in a position to pay the fees upfront for their sons and daughters. In such cases the debt will no longer exist - having been paid off.
It's quite entertaing to watch all the Mercedes fans who whinged endlessly about Ferrari team orders tying themselves in knots about how Mercedes are quite right to use them themselves to let a slower car in front of a faster car...
There are some of us who whinge about team orders, irrespective of where they originate. That said, I do understand it’s a business as much as a sport.
Not a fan of them myself.
I just think the contortions are amusing.
Given your reports of the contortions you engage in with your organ.....
I never perform contortions on the organ. Lots of nice combination buttons for me to use. That means I always come in hole...
I’m told that finding the button can sometimes be difficult for solo organists...
I have had no complaints while playing duets though.
OK, I have to admit defeat, as I have work to do, unlike all these idle teachers.... 😊
Reading both sets of comments , it did not strike me that a firm commitment to writing off all debt had been made. 'Ambition' is far from that - and Corbyn did specifically refer to extending repayment periods etc. I would,however, be surprised if the commitment to abolish Tuition Fees were to be abandoned.
Of course, the people with tuition fees in 2017 (the very ones who were enthused) will be the ones with tuition fee debt in 2022.
They will have passed from the group of people who will benefit from Corbyn to the group of people left behind. We will hear from them in 2022.
The golden rule in politics is you always hear more from the losers than the winners.
If you make tuition fees free, and then fail to write off the debt of earlier generations who were unlucky when they went to University, then you have created many more losers than winners. The losers will be only to ready to gripe publicly on air and on TV.
Which is why Corbyn will just pretend he will write off the debt again. Worked last time and there would be even more winners from that next time.
Numbers won't add up but since when have they cared about that?
I agree no-one left in Labour can do the simplest sums.
As regard the policy, I'd be in favour of removing tuition fees, writing off the debt and modestly reducing the number of people going to University.
As always when I agree with Labour, I just wonder if they are seriously interesting in implementing the policy, as believable costings never seem to get done.
If you were keen to do it, you would have worked out how much you are going to have put up the higher rate of tax.
Reading both sets of comments , it did not strike me that a firm commitment to writing off all debt had been made. 'Ambition' is far from that - and Corbyn did specifically refer to extending repayment periods etc. I would,however, be surprised if the commitment to abolish Tuition Fees were to be abandoned.
Of course, the people with tuition fees in 2017 (the very ones who were enthused) will be the ones with tuition fee debt in 2022.
They will have passed from the group of people who will benefit from Corbyn to the group of people left behind. We will hear from them in 2022.
The golden rule in politics is you always hear more from the losers than the winners.
If you make tuition fees free, and then fail to write off the debt of earlier generations who were unlucky when they went to University, then you have created many more losers than winners. The losers will be only to ready to gripe publicly on air and on TV.
I understand that point - though suspect that the losers will still be more inclined to blame those who imposed the debt on them in the first place - ie the Tories and Libdems. Similar resentment is likely from those parents who were in a position to pay the fees upfront for their sons and daughters. In such cases the debt will no longer exist - having been paid off.
I think Dr Fox is right.
It is completely unsustainable to create a stitched-up generation (& it will be electorally very damaging as well).
I think making tuition fees free goes hand-in-hand with writing off the existing debt.
Anyone know what Theresa's "compromise" with the EU is going to entail?
I thought Chequers WAS the compromise?
Therein lies the problem - it already wasn't acceptable to, well, pretty much everybody, and it is hard to see how tilting it yet further to the EU will make more people happy.
Reading both sets of comments , it did not strike me that a firm commitment to writing off all debt had been made. 'Ambition' is far from that - and Corbyn did specifically refer to extending repayment periods etc. I would,however, be surprised if the commitment to abolish Tuition Fees were to be abandoned.
Of course, the people with tuition fees in 2017 (the very ones who were enthused) will be the ones with tuition fee debt in 2022.
They will have passed from the group of people who will benefit from Corbyn to the group of people left behind. We will hear from them in 2022.
The golden rule in politics is you always hear more from the losers than the winners.
If you make tuition fees free, and then fail to write off the debt of earlier generations who were unlucky when they went to University, then you have created many more losers than winners. The losers will be only to ready to gripe publicly on air and on TV.
I understand that point - though suspect that the losers will still be more inclined to blame those who imposed the debt on them in the first place - ie the Tories and Libdems. Similar resentment is likely from those parents who were in a position to pay the fees upfront for their sons and daughters. In such cases the debt will no longer exist - having been paid off.
I think Dr Fox is right.
It is completely unsustainable to create a stitched-up generation (& it will be electorally very damaging as well).
I think making tuition fees free goes hand-in-hand with writing off the existing debt.
I don't disagree at all. What about those parents who actually paid the fees rather than see their children incur the debts?
Reading both sets of comments , it did not strike me that a firm commitment to writing off all debt had been made. 'Ambition' is far from that - and Corbyn did specifically refer to extending repayment periods etc. I would,however, be surprised if the commitment to abolish Tuition Fees were to be abandoned.
Of course, the people with tuition fees in 2017 (the very ones who were enthused) will be the ones with tuition fee debt in 2022.
They will have passed from the group of people who will benefit from Corbyn to the group of people left behind. We will hear from them in 2022.
The golden rule in politics is you always hear more from the losers than the winners.
If you make tuition fees free, and then fail to write off the debt of earlier generations who were unlucky when they went to University, then you have created many more losers than winners. The losers will be only to ready to gripe publicly on air and on TV.
I understand that point - though suspect that the losers will still be more inclined to blame those who imposed the debt on them in the first place - ie the Tories and Libdems. Similar resentment is likely from those parents who were in a position to pay the fees upfront for their sons and daughters. In such cases the debt will no longer exist - having been paid off.
I think Dr Fox is right.
It is completely unsustainable to create a stitched-up generation (& it will be electorally very damaging as well).
I think making tuition fees free goes hand-in-hand with writing off the existing debt.
Of course he's right. Everybody except uni vice chancellors, who are invariably dicks, Lord Browne, who admits he is a perjurer, and the Student Loans Company, who are so thick they do not know the order of the months of the year - I really wish I was making that up - knows the system is a shambles.
The snag is nobody has yet come up with a meaningful idea to replace it.
IF May fudges, as we both expect, and she is voted down by an unholy alliance of the ERG and Labour, what happens next?
She would be presumably be replaced by a Harder Brexiter - Davis, Johnson, or perhaps Javid, and a swing to CETA+ - however that still needs to get through Parliament.
How would it, given DUP would presumably vote against as would soft Tories (and all Opposition parties).
We would then have a constitutional and financial crisis, hurtling toward No Deal with no obvious solution in sight.
No - a Mayite fudge that resembles EEA+CU is the ONLY deal that can be agreed with EU and approved by Parliament.
There would probably not time for anything to happen if May’s deal is voted down. May resigns. A Leaver would take over. They would offer the EU a choice between CETA with no backstop or no deal. Which is what May should be doing now.
If the EU accept, there will be a short delay in A50 to get it done. If they refuse, there is no deal. In neither scenario would the DUP be upset - Leavers have no intention of accepting the backstop.
If May got Chequers agreed by the EU basically unamended, she would still probably lose in the HoC but she might have a chance. But May’s sellout fudge will be voted down. Easily. The moment she concedes on the customs partnership and agrees the customs union it is all over. No trade policy is a red line for plenty of Tories.
Why would the EU accept, and even extend A50? Brexiters would need to definitively resolve the Irish border issue which they have completely failed to do so far.
Simply saying the Irish border is not an issue does not mean it is no longer an issue.
It is not an issue and not the UK’s job to resolve it.
If the EU insist on the NI backstop, there will be no deal. If they want to be sensible, it can be solved. But after no deal there is going to be a soft border whether they like it or not and at that time their leverage is gone. That is why no deal is probably the best tactical outcome for the UK.
As I said, saying it is not an issue doesn’t make it go away.
Why would a No Deal (the Hardest of Brexits) mean a soft border?
It's not an issue. If we refuse to deal with it and Ireland refuses to have a border then what happens next?
Nobody is going to give a fuck about the NI border in the event of no deal as we'll have plenty of other problems to worry about.
The maritime borders between the 6 and 26 counties are also ill defined and subject to competing claims. So that whole bucket of shit could get kicked over too.
Reading both sets of comments , it did not strike me that a firm commitment to writing off all debt had been made. 'Ambition' is far from that - and Corbyn did specifically refer to extending repayment periods etc. I would,however, be surprised if the commitment to abolish Tuition Fees were to be abandoned.
Of course, the people with tuition fees in 2017 (the very ones who were enthused) will be the ones with tuition fee debt in 2022.
They will have passed from the group of people who will benefit from Corbyn to the group of people left behind. We will hear from them in 2022.
The golden rule in politics is you always hear more from the losers than the winners.
If you make tuition fees free, and then fail to write off the debt of earlier generations who were unlucky when they went to University, then you have created many more losers than winners. The losers will be only to ready to gripe publicly on air and on TV.
I understand that point - though suspect that the losers will still be more inclined to blame those who imposed the debt on them in the first place - ie the Tories and Libdems. Similar resentment is likely from those parents who were in a position to pay the fees upfront for their sons and daughters. In such cases the debt will no longer exist - having been paid off.
I think Dr Fox is right.
It is completely unsustainable to create a stitched-up generation (& it will be electorally very damaging as well).
I think making tuition fees free goes hand-in-hand with writing off the existing debt.
I don't disagree at all. What about those parents who actually paid the fees rather than see their children incur the debts?
I suspect that there will be little sympathy for such people from a Corbyn Gov't.
Like the families of dementia patients, who have to pay for their care, it is perfectly fine for electoral purposes to create a highly disadvantaged subset (provided the subset is small).
In fact, before May's blundering, I bet hardly anyone knew that New Labour were the architects of that vicious and unfair policy. Even after May's blundering, most people still think it is something the Tories were prevented from introducing in 2017.
So, you can be as unfair as you like to parents who were wealthy enough to pay off their son's and daughter's tuition fees.
Reading both sets of comments , it did not strike me that a firm commitment to writing off all debt had been made. 'Ambition' is far from that - and Corbyn did specifically refer to extending repayment periods etc. I would,however, be surprised if the commitment to abolish Tuition Fees were to be abandoned.
Of course, the people with tuition fees in 2017 (the very ones who were enthused) will be the ones with tuition fee debt in 2022.
They will have passed from the group of people who will benefit from Corbyn to the group of people left behind. We will hear from them in 2022.
The golden rule in politics is you always hear more from the losers than the winners.
If you make tuition fees free, and then fail to write off the debt of earlier generations who were unlucky when they went to University, then you have created many more losers than winners. The losers will be only to ready to gripe publicly on air and on TV.
I understand that point - though suspect that the losers will still be more inclined to blame those who imposed the debt on them in the first place - ie the Tories and Libdems. Similar resentment is likely from those parents who were in a position to pay the fees upfront for their sons and daughters. In such cases the debt will no longer exist - having been paid off.
I think Dr Fox is right.
It is completely unsustainable to create a stitched-up generation (& it will be electorally very damaging as well).
I think making tuition fees free goes hand-in-hand with writing off the existing debt.
Of course he's right. Everybody except uni vice chancellors, who are invariably dicks, Lord Browne, who admits he is a perjurer, and the Student Loans Company, who are so thick they do not know the order of the months of the year - I really wish I was making that up - knows the system is a shambles.
The snag is nobody has yet come up with a meaningful idea to replace it.
Except of course every other country in the EU, who somehow manage to have either no fees or modest fees.
(I am not against modest fees).
I suspect if France or Germany or the Netherlands can provide University education with affordable fees, so can we.
Reading both sets of comments , it did not strike me that a firm commitment to writing off all debt had been made. 'Ambition' is far from that - and Corbyn did specifically refer to extending repayment periods etc. I would,however, be surprised if the commitment to abolish Tuition Fees were to be abandoned.
Of course, the people with tuition fees in 2017 (the very ones who were enthused) will be the ones with tuition fee debt in 2022.
They will have passed from the group of people who will benefit from Corbyn to the group of people left behind. We will hear from them in 2022.
The golden rule in politics is you always hear more from the losers than the winners.
If you make tuition fees free, and then fail to write off the debt of earlier generations who were unlucky when they went to University, then you have created many more losers than winners. The losers will be only to ready to gripe publicly on air and on TV.
I understand that point - though suspect that the losers will still be more inclined to blame those who imposed the debt on them in the first place - ie the Tories and Libdems. Similar resentment is likely from those parents who were in a position to pay the fees upfront for their sons and daughters. In such cases the debt will no longer exist - having been paid off.
I think Dr Fox is right.
It is completely unsustainable to create a stitched-up generation (& it will be electorally very damaging as well).
I think making tuition fees free goes hand-in-hand with writing off the existing debt.
Of course he's right. Everybody except uni vice chancellors, who are invariably dicks, Lord Browne, who admits he is a perjurer, and the Student Loans Company, who are so thick they do not know the order of the months of the year - I really wish I was making that up - knows the system is a shambles.
The snag is nobody has yet come up with a meaningful idea to replace it.
Cough. Means-tested grants. Cough. Worked reasonably when I were a lad.
King Cole, the numbers were much smaller then. Blair decided half the population needed a degree, and the numbers ballooned.
Accept that, but surely that’s better than loans which never get repaid.
A percentage of loans never getting paid is a feature of the system, not a bug. Its simply a progressive graduate tax that can't be escaped from by moving abroad.
Who is going to scrap student fees when it means taxes going up on everyone else?
King Cole, the numbers were much smaller then. Blair decided half the population needed a degree, and the numbers ballooned.
Accept that, but surely that’s better than loans which never get repaid.
A percentage of loans never getting paid is a feature of the system, not a bug. Its simply a progressive graduate tax that can't be escaped from by moving abroad.
Who is going to scrap student fees when it means taxes going up on everyone else?
Why can’t it be escaped by moving abroad. If my (teacher) grandson moves to Thailand to teach, how is the the UK going to get access to his Thai salary?
King Cole, the numbers were much smaller then. Blair decided half the population needed a degree, and the numbers ballooned.
Accept that, but surely that’s better than loans which never get repaid.
A percentage of loans never getting paid is a feature of the system, not a bug. Its simply a progressive graduate tax that can't be escaped from by moving abroad.
Who is going to scrap student fees when it means taxes going up on everyone else?
Why can’t it be escaped by moving abroad. If my (teacher) grandson moves to Thailand to teach, how is the the UK going to get access to his Thai salary?
In Thailand he would get away with it at the moment, even though legally he is still liable. In some European countries there is crosschecking that goes on and catches people that way.
It all depends if he wanted to return to the UK in the future or was happy to live abroad for the rest of his career.
King Cole, the numbers were much smaller then. Blair decided half the population needed a degree, and the numbers ballooned.
Accept that, but surely that’s better than loans which never get repaid.
A percentage of loans never getting paid is a feature of the system, not a bug. Its simply a progressive graduate tax that can't be escaped from by moving abroad.
Who is going to scrap student fees when it means taxes going up on everyone else?
Why can’t it be escaped by moving abroad. If my (teacher) grandson moves to Thailand to teach, how is the the UK going to get access to his Thai salary?
In Thailand he would get away with it at the moment, even though legally he is still liable. In some European countries there is crosschecking that goes on and catches people that way.
It all depends if he wanted to return to the UK in the future or was happy to live abroad for the rest of his career.
Australia? And if he returns from Thailand does he have to catch up, or just continue from where he is now.
King Cole, the numbers were much smaller then. Blair decided half the population needed a degree, and the numbers ballooned.
Accept that, but surely that’s better than loans which never get repaid.
A percentage of loans never getting paid is a feature of the system, not a bug. Its simply a progressive graduate tax that can't be escaped from by moving abroad.
Who is going to scrap student fees when it means taxes going up on everyone else?
Why can’t it be escaped by moving abroad. If my (teacher) grandson moves to Thailand to teach, how is the the UK going to get access to his Thai salary?
In Thailand he would get away with it at the moment, even though legally he is still liable. In some European countries there is crosschecking that goes on and catches people that way.
It all depends if he wanted to return to the UK in the future or was happy to live abroad for the rest of his career.
Australia? And if he returns from Thailand does he have to catch up, or just continue from where he is now.
Because he should have been paying while abroad, he would be liable for arrears.
King Cole, the numbers were much smaller then. Blair decided half the population needed a degree, and the numbers ballooned.
Accept that, but surely that’s better than loans which never get repaid.
A percentage of loans never getting paid is a feature of the system, not a bug. Its simply a progressive graduate tax that can't be escaped from by moving abroad.
Who is going to scrap student fees when it means taxes going up on everyone else?
Why can’t it be escaped by moving abroad. If my (teacher) grandson moves to Thailand to teach, how is the the UK going to get access to his Thai salary?
In Thailand he would get away with it at the moment, even though legally he is still liable. In some European countries there is crosschecking that goes on and catches people that way.
It all depends if he wanted to return to the UK in the future or was happy to live abroad for the rest of his career.
Australia? And if he returns from Thailand does he have to catch up, or just continue from where he is now.
Because he should have been paying while abroad, he would be liable for arrears.
Ah thanks. He’s not thinking on those lines at the moment; happy and fulfilled teaching in a primary school in a fairly tough part of Basildon.
Anyone know what Theresa's "compromise" with the EU is going to entail?
I thought Chequers WAS the compromise?
Most likely it will be Chequers Plus ie stay in the SM and CU with a slightly different name after Brexit.
It was clear from her Marr interview this morning when May said she was working for a Deal that her talk of No Deal as a last resort was just lip service to the Tory right, she is not actually going to do it
Anyone know what Theresa's "compromise" with the EU is going to entail?
I thought Chequers WAS the compromise?
Most likely it will be Chequers Plus ie stay in the SM and CU with a slightly different name after Brexit.
It was clear from her Marr interview this morning when May said she was working for a Deal that her talk of No Deal as a last resort was just lip service to the Tory right, she is not actually going to do it
This will be same Theresa May who went to the country last year on a manifesto saying we were definitely leaving the SM and definitely leaving the CU? Why should she keep her job?
King Cole, the numbers were much smaller then. Blair decided half the population needed a degree, and the numbers ballooned.
Accept that, but surely that’s better than loans which never get repaid.
A percentage of loans never getting paid is a feature of the system, not a bug. Its simply a progressive graduate tax that can't be escaped from by moving abroad.
Who is going to scrap student fees when it means taxes going up on everyone else?
Why can’t it be escaped by moving abroad. If my (teacher) grandson moves to Thailand to teach, how is the the UK going to get access to his Thai salary?
In Thailand he would get away with it at the moment, even though legally he is still liable. In some European countries there is crosschecking that goes on and catches people that way.
It all depends if he wanted to return to the UK in the future or was happy to live abroad for the rest of his career.
Australia? And if he returns from Thailand does he have to catch up, or just continue from where he is now.
Because he should have been paying while abroad, he would be liable for arrears.
Ah thanks. He’s not thinking on those lines at the moment; happy and fulfilled teaching in a primary school in a fairly tough part of Basildon.
Bottom line is, if you intend to go abroad, and stay abroad, you can dodge the SLC. This is because they are a bunch of useless third rate cretins who would be unable to find their genitals if standing naked in front of a full length mirror, er, they do not sue through foreign courts for monies owed.
However, if you came back here for any length of time and especially if you took a job, they will almost certainly swoop, and very hard. And there's no way of dodging them because of the way the repayment system works.
Anyone know what Theresa's "compromise" with the EU is going to entail?
I thought Chequers WAS the compromise?
Most likely it will be Chequers Plus ie stay in the SM and CU with a slightly different name after Brexit.
It was clear from her Marr interview this morning when May said she was working for a Deal that her talk of No Deal as a last resort was just lip service to the Tory right, she is not actually going to do it
May has made her red lines clear. The EU has done the same. There is no overlap, hence the impasse.
She has a simple choice. She can cave, and try to sell continued SM/CU membership or the de facto cession of Northern Ireland as somehow being compatible with the Brexit vote, or she admits that the negotiations have failed, and we will leave with no deal. Thanks to her stubbornness, she will do neither.
I expect that it will be the EU that declares the negotiations dead in November, at which point the British domestic crisis will begin.
We really don't need, or want, a running commentary from SeanT's bedroom ...
That's the Ridden Cup!
More seriously it's looking very close here. Molinari against Mickelson will I think be key. If Molinari holds on Europe should win.
If Rahm can hold his nerve that makes life easier...but you wouldn't blame a rookie for cracking against Woods (what was the captain thinking with this lineup)?
We really don't need, or want, a running commentary from SeanT's bedroom ...
That's the Ridden Cup!
More seriously it's looking very close here. Molinari against Mickelson will I think be key. If Molinari holds on Europe should win.
If Rahm can hold his nerve that makes life easier...but you wouldn't blame a rookie for cracking against Woods (what was the captain thinking with this lineup)?
We really don't need, or want, a running commentary from SeanT's bedroom ...
That's the Ridden Cup!
More seriously it's looking very close here. Molinari against Mickelson will I think be key. If Molinari holds on Europe should win.
If Rahm can hold his nerve that makes life easier...but you wouldn't blame a rookie for cracking against Woods (what was the captain thinking with this lineup)?
Mr. Urquhart, we used to dream of having cola for Christmas. Would've been like a present from Jesus himself. We had to make do with rainwater from a bucket.
Mr. Urquhart, we used to dream of having cola for Christmas. Would've been like a present from Jesus himself. We had to make do with rainwater from a bucket.
From where did you get the bucket? We used to have to run out with our hands cupped!
Mr. Urquhart, we used to dream of having cola for Christmas. Would've been like a present from Jesus himself. We had to make do with rainwater from a bucket.
Mr. Urquhart, we used to dream of having cola for Christmas. Would've been like a present from Jesus himself. We had to make do with rainwater from a bucket.
From where did you get the bucket? We used to have to run out with our hands cupped!
Ands? You 'ad 'ands!
We 'ad to scoop out t'imside of yoomgest's head, and use it to scoop dog piss off pavement!
Mr. Urquhart, we used to dream of having cola for Christmas. Would've been like a present from Jesus himself. We had to make do with rainwater from a bucket.
From where did you get the bucket? We used to have to run out with our hands cupped!
Ands? You 'ad 'ands!
We 'ad to scoop out t'imside of yoomgest's head, and use it to scoop dog piss off pavement!
Anyone know what Theresa's "compromise" with the EU is going to entail?
I thought Chequers WAS the compromise?
Most likely it will be Chequers Plus ie stay in the SM and CU with a slightly different name after Brexit.
It was clear from her Marr interview this morning when May said she was working for a Deal that her talk of No Deal as a last resort was just lip service to the Tory right, she is not actually going to do it
This will be same Theresa May who went to the country last year on a manifesto saying we were definitely leaving the SM and definitely leaving the CU? Why should she keep her job?
She knows she won't keep her job with No Deal, she will fudge it in such a way she can say we are still technically leaving the SM and CU even if in reality in most respects we are staying in them
Anyone know what Theresa's "compromise" with the EU is going to entail?
I thought Chequers WAS the compromise?
Most likely it will be Chequers Plus ie stay in the SM and CU with a slightly different name after Brexit.
It was clear from her Marr interview this morning when May said she was working for a Deal that her talk of No Deal as a last resort was just lip service to the Tory right, she is not actually going to do it
May has made her red lines clear. The EU has done the same. There is no overlap, hence the impasse.
She has a simple choice. She can cave, and try to sell continued SM/CU membership or the de facto cession of Northern Ireland as somehow being compatible with the Brexit vote, or she admits that the negotiations have failed, and we will leave with no deal. Thanks to her stubbornness, she will do neither.
I expect that it will be the EU that declares the negotiations dead in November, at which point the British domestic crisis will begin.
What she will concede is greater alignment on services to coincide with the greater alignment she has already conceded on goods and the Irish backstop will be NI effectively stays in the Customs Union in all but name. She might also get some sort of Liechtenstein scenario on FoM.
It was clear from Marr this morning May has no desire for No Deal beyond paying lip service as a last restort to it for hardened Brexiteers
Mr. Urquhart, we used to dream of having cola for Christmas. Would've been like a present from Jesus himself. We had to make do with rainwater from a bucket.
From where did you get the bucket? We used to have to run out with our hands cupped!
Ands? You 'ad 'ands!
We 'ad to scoop out t'imside of yoomgest's head, and use it to scoop dog piss off pavement!
The Four Yorkshiremen have a lot to answer for!
Four Yorkshiremen? you were lucky!
We had to make do with a Yorkie Terrier, and he had only 3 legs...
Mr. Urquhart, we used to dream of having cola for Christmas. Would've been like a present from Jesus himself. We had to make do with rainwater from a bucket.
From where did you get the bucket? We used to have to run out with our hands cupped!
Ands? You 'ad 'ands!
We 'ad to scoop out t'imside of yoomgest's head, and use it to scoop dog piss off pavement!
The Four Yorkshiremen have a lot to answer for!
Four Yorkshiremen? you were lucky!
We had to make do with a Yorkie Terrier, and he had only 3 legs...
All over. Best team won, USA have been piss poor this week. I think the foursomes on Friday they were +13...4 pairs of world class players, 13 over par, it just terrible.
My favourite recent Four Yorkshireman failure was when some youthful twonk at a Miliband-era conference complained of his poverty, tweeting it from his iPad.
All over. Best team won, USA have been piss poor this week. I think the foursomes on Friday they were +13...4 pairs of world class players, 13 over par, it just terrible.
American golf not in a great place - maybe they need to make it Rest of the World and get some help from Asia.....
Comments
More likely to me, such a course of action would likely create a civil emergency. It would lead to No Deal and a state of economic chaos.
Somebody has weak nerves!
They will have passed from the group of people who will benefit from Corbyn to the group of people left behind. We will hear from them in 2022.
The golden rule in politics is you always hear more from the losers than the winners.
If you make tuition fees free, and then fail to write off the debt of earlier generations who were unlucky when they went to University, then you have created many more losers than winners. The losers will be only to ready to gripe publicly on air and on TV.
I would suggest Vocalzones as the best alternative.
And a breathing coach.
Maybe the BBC wants to be allowed back next year ?
Fox jr is in that cohort, and doesn't want others in it, but some sort of writedown is needed. It is going to be bigger and harder the longer it is left.
Write it all off for domestic students, and bring down the higher rate tax threshold.
F1: rather more interesting race than last year. Although the Red Bull idea didn't come off, my thinking was proved right (namely they'd slice their way through the field so 67 for them to top score was too long).
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/409039-republicans-accelerate-efforts-to-overhaul-endangered-species-act
Numbers won't add up but since when have they cared about that?
Which is the better lesson?
1) When Jesus is giving a sermon, don't bother packing lunch
or 2) When following Jesus, there will be sustenance in abundance, even for those who possess nothing..
Similar resentment is likely from those parents who were in a position to pay the fees upfront for their sons and daughters. In such cases the debt will no longer exist - having been paid off.
😊
As regard the policy, I'd be in favour of removing tuition fees, writing off the debt and modestly reducing the number of people going to University.
As always when I agree with Labour, I just wonder if they are seriously interesting in implementing the policy, as believable costings never seem to get done.
If you were keen to do it, you would have worked out how much you are going to have put up the higher rate of tax.
It is completely unsustainable to create a stitched-up generation (& it will be electorally very damaging as well).
I think making tuition fees free goes hand-in-hand with writing off the existing debt.
The snag is nobody has yet come up with a meaningful idea to replace it.
The maritime borders between the 6 and 26 counties are also ill defined and subject to competing claims. So that whole bucket of shit could get kicked over too.
Like the families of dementia patients, who have to pay for their care, it is perfectly fine for electoral purposes to create a highly disadvantaged subset (provided the subset is small).
In fact, before May's blundering, I bet hardly anyone knew that New Labour were the architects of that vicious and unfair policy. Even after May's blundering, most people still think it is something the Tories were prevented from introducing in 2017.
So, you can be as unfair as you like to parents who were wealthy enough to pay off their son's and daughter's tuition fees.
(I am not against modest fees).
I suspect if France or Germany or the Netherlands can provide University education with affordable fees, so can we.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/09/russia-post-race-analysis-2018.html
Who is going to scrap student fees when it means taxes going up on everyone else?
It all depends if he wanted to return to the UK in the future or was happy to live abroad for the rest of his career.
It was clear from her Marr interview this morning when May said she was working for a Deal that her talk of No Deal as a last resort was just lip service to the Tory right, she is not actually going to do it
are a bunch of useless third rate cretins who would be unable to find their genitals if standing naked in front of a full length mirror, er, they do not sue through foreign courts for monies owed.However, if you came back here for any length of time and especially if you took a job, they will almost certainly swoop, and very hard. And there's no way of dodging them because of the way the repayment system works.
@EuropeElects
Germany, Civey poll:
CDU/CSU-EPP: 27% (-1)
SPD-S&D: 17% (-1)
AfD-EFDD: 17% (+1)
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 16% (+1)
LINKE-LEFT: 10%
FDP-ALDE: 9% (+1)
Field work: 23/09/18 – 30/09/18
Sample size: 11,919"
She has a simple choice. She can cave, and try to sell continued SM/CU membership or the de facto cession of Northern Ireland as somehow being compatible with the Brexit vote, or she admits that the negotiations have failed, and we will leave with no deal. Thanks to her stubbornness, she will do neither.
I expect that it will be the EU that declares the negotiations dead in November, at which point the British domestic crisis will begin.
More seriously it's looking very close here. Molinari against Mickelson will I think be key. If Molinari holds on Europe should win.
If Rahm can hold his nerve that makes life easier...but you wouldn't blame a rookie for cracking against Woods (what was the captain thinking with this lineup)?
....
And they might be right!
We need two of the final six. We're ahead in four.
I stand by my prediction that Molinari is the key.
It would look a bit stupid, but then I've never been a big admirer of the current flag. Cheap ripoff of the old US flag.
We 'ad to scoop out t'imside of yoomgest's head, and use it to scoop dog piss off pavement!
A key to winning elections is to be the side that frames the basic question(s) to be answered by the election.
It was clear from Marr this morning May has no desire for No Deal beyond paying lip service as a last restort to it for hardened Brexiteers
We had to make do with a Yorkie Terrier, and he had only 3 legs...