politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on who will be Philip Hammond’s successor

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

NickPalmer said:

felix said:

"What The Actual Fuck! #Marr excuses Cox's behaviour because of what he went through"

Not seen the programme but if true it is odd because:

1. It really doesn't excuse the behaviour
&
2. The behaviour preceded his wife's murder.

The point is that the sort of dubious office behaviour that he admits to wouldn't rate media coverage at all except for the fact that he's the husband of an MP who was murdered. Since anyone with any empathy at all feels that must have been rough, it's surely reasonable to cut him some slack and let him sort out his life in private. Surely being related to a victim shouldn't make you fair game for trial by media. Can any of us be absolutely sure we've never said anything that we'd be embarrassed by if we were catapulted into celebrity by the murder of a relative?

He was asked to resign because of the “dubious office behaviour”. That sounds pretty serious to me

The Harvard student chose to make s police report about the matter. That sounds pretty serious to me.

Of course he wouldn’t have been in the Mail if he wasn’t in the public eye. But he chose to make himself a public figure after his wife’s death.

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

John_M said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.

Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.

I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.

It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students today.

Unless you wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher or academic or senior civil servant very few went to university as few jobs needed graduates.

You could be an accountant or a stockbroker or a middle manager or a journalist with just A Levels, a police officer or nurse with just GCSEs or O Levels, now most of those who do those jobs have degrees.

Teaching required a two year diploma course. OK for most secondary and prinmary. Grammar schools needed degrees for lots of subjects, except I think PE.
Old school friend of mine, whom I met up with again about a year ago after 50+ years, said that he’d done very well in banking with O levels.

The old secondary moderns may not have needed full degrees no but grammar schools generally did as you say, the rise of comprehensive education largely coincided with the expansion of university education from the mid to late 1960s on.

The City in the 1980s was certainly full of public schoolboys and Essex boys who never went to university

One of my sons was one of those Essex boys in the late 80’s! Subsequently went to Uni, though.

Helped no doubt by university expansion

Not really. Went to one established in the 60’s, with an excellent reputation.

The 60s was the first big period of university expansion, Warwick, York, Sussex, Essex, UEA, Kent etc all founded then

Some very good names there. High reputations.

The reputation of those in every subsequent expansion wave has fallen.

The law of diminsihing returns in action.

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

TGOHF said:

Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?

https://twitter.com/peston/status/965131399459205120

I am going to go with option 3....

The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.

I agree with that analysis. I think I'll pinch it and add it to "in my opinion". . Hope you don't mind.

We’ll make a Conservative of you yet...

No chance of that! If it wasn't for the ideology, the members and the attitude ... But, as a pragmatist I am open-minded to well argued ideas.

The feature I would add to you suggestion is that in return for a free market in courses and fees I would insist that universities picked up some/most of the cost of means-tested maintenance grants and fees. I would also introduce a free market in student loans with the government as guarantor and collector rather than let the Student Loan Company have a monopoly with exorbitant interest rates.

I’d certainly require universities to have bursary schemes so that no qualified kid can’t go to university for financial reasons - not sure I would put them on the hook for government policy directly as you suggest.

Fine with multiple providers of student loans. No reason why government should actually advance the capital

Isn’t this pretty much the American system, with State and community collleges mostly government funded, and the Ivy League colleges allowing massive fees alongside bursaries and needs-blind admissions policies?

TwistedFireStopper said:

OldKingCole said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

felix said:

"What The Actual Fuck! #Marr excuses Cox's behaviour because of what he went through"

Not seen the programme but if true it is odd because:

1. It really doesn't excuse the behaviour
&
2. The behaviour preceded his wife's murder.

The point is that the sort of dubious office behaviour that he admits to wouldn't rate media coverage at all except for the fact that he's the husband of an MP who was murdered. Since anyone with any empathy at all feels that must have been rough, it's surely reasonable to cut him some slack and let him sort out his life in private. Surely being related to a victim shouldn't make you fair game for trial by media. Can any of us be absolutely sure we've never said anything that we'd be embarrassed by if we were catapulted into celebrity by the murder of a relative?

It is rarely I disagree with you Nick but he has been found out as a sex pest and labour should be focussing on his victims.

The fact that be is an icon of the left does not excuse the collective way they have tried to mitigate the damage caused and his involvement with save the children

The quote from the Mail site is that once 'It is claimed that Mr Cox drunkenly harassed a female employee at the charity in London, forcing her against a wall outside a bar, holding her by the throat and telling her: 'I want to f*** you.’

Now that is unquestionably an incredibly stupid thing to do and equally unquestionably a resigning matter, but his statement suggests that he’s ashamed of himself.

That's alright, then. The bloke has said he's ashamed, no harm done, he'll be back in the charity sector by the end of the day.

And that is exactly the problem

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

We have to pretend that we are in order to get 'the best possible deal', but once we know what it looks like we can drop the pretence.

williamglenn said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

We have to pretend that we are in order to get 'the best possible deal', but once we know what it looks like we can drop the pretence.

And leave

NickPalmer said:

Two new German polls should slightly steady Social Democrat (and therefore Merkel) nerves:

http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/ 7

Not great, but not awful either.

16% and 19% should steady their nerves? I thought they'd be on at least 20% in both.

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

John_M said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.

Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.

I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.

It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students today.

Unless you wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher or academic or senior civil servant very few went to university as few jobs needed graduates.

You could be an accountant or a stockbroker or a middle manager or a journalist with just A Levels, a police officer or nurse with just GCSEs or O Levels, now most of those who do those jobs have degrees.

Teaching required a two year diploma course. OK for most secondary and prinmary. Grammar schools needed degrees for lots of subjects, except I think PE.
Old school friend of mine, whom I met up with again about a year ago after 50+ years, said that he’d done very well in banking with O levels.

The old secondary moderns may not have needed full degrees no but grammar schools generally did as you say, the rise of comprehensive education largely coincided with the expansion of university education from the mid to late 1960s on.

The City in the 1980s was certainly full of public schoolboys and Essex boys who never went to university

One of my sons was one of those Essex boys in the late 80’s! Subsequently went to Uni, though.

Helped no doubt by university expansion

Not really. Went to one established in the 60’s, with an excellent reputation.

The 60s was the first big period of university expansion, Warwick, York, Sussex, Essex, UEA, Kent etc all founded then

Some very good names there. High reputations.

I remember when UEA was known as the University of Easy Access.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

That doesn't mean we shouldn't everything in our power to mitigate the problems - something your leader is failing to do miserably. Surely even your loyalty is being tested by now. I mean, she really is a dud.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

-3.9% is equivalent to one bad year.

Or a drag of about 0.3% per annum...?

Is this a soft Brexit scenario then?

For hard brexit is seems outrageously lenient.

And it is a 15 year forecast - remain have lost this argument

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

-3.9% is equivalent to one bad year.

Or a drag of about 0.3% per annum...?

Is this a soft Brexit scenario then?

For hard brexit is seems outrageously lenient.

And it is a 15 year forecast - remain have lost this argument

Remain have won the argument but Leave don't care.

Meanwhile Leavers wonder why in retrospect the public is inclining to the view that leaving the EU was the wrong decision.

another_richard said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

To put this prediction into context the stagnant productivity of the last decade has already knocked 20% off potential UK GDP.

Generally if you're lost in the woods you don't improve the situation by slitting your wrists.

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

-3.9% is equivalent to one bad year.

Or a drag of about 0.3% per annum...?

Is this a soft Brexit scenario then?

For hard brexit is seems outrageously lenient.

And it is a 15 year forecast - remain have lost this argument

Remain have won the argument but Leave don't care.

Meanwhile Leavers wonder why in retrospect the public is inclining to the view that leaving the EU was the wrong decision.

No evidence just wishful thinking

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/election_data/status/965180116946038784

It may be the case that only 9% of Labour voters were Leave supporters for whom Brexit was the no. 1 issue, but if Labour were to lose them, the Tories would win a big majority.

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

-3.9% is equivalent to one bad year.

Or a drag of about 0.3% per annum...?

Is this a soft Brexit scenario then?

For hard brexit is seems outrageously lenient.

And it is a 15 year forecast - remain have lost this argument

Remain have won the argument.

Remain “won the argument but lost the vote”?

Curious view of democracy....

Seems to be Labour leadership position wrt last election.

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

-3.9% is equivalent to one bad year.

Or a drag of about 0.3% per annum...?

Is this a soft Brexit scenario then?

For hard brexit is seems outrageously lenient.

And it is a 15 year forecast - remain have lost this argument

Remain have won the argument but Leave don't care.

Meanwhile Leavers wonder why in retrospect the public is inclining to the view that leaving the EU was the wrong decision.

Talking of predictions I remember reading here:

' recession is beckoning with a dark cloak, a skeletal finger and a voice that speaks in block capitals. '

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/29/alistair-meeks-on-the-political-and-economic-crises-of-breathtaking-proportions/#vanilla-comments

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

-3.9% is equivalent to one bad year.

Or a drag of about 0.3% per annum...?

Is this a soft Brexit scenario then?

For hard brexit is seems outrageously lenient.

And it is a 15 year forecast - remain have lost this argument

Remain have won the argument but Leave don't care.

Meanwhile Leavers wonder why in retrospect the public is inclining to the view that leaving the EU was the wrong decision.

No evidence just wishful thinking

There is abundant polling evidence that the public is inclining to the view that leaving the EU was the wrong decision.

You are welcome to concoct your own reason why this might be.

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

-3.9% is equivalent to one bad year.

Or a drag of about 0.3% per annum...?

Is this a soft Brexit scenario then?

For hard brexit is seems outrageously lenient.

And it is a 15 year forecast - remain have lost this argument

Remain have won the argument but Leave don't care.

Meanwhile Leavers wonder why in retrospect the public is inclining to the view that leaving the EU was the wrong decision.

No evidence just wishful thinking

There is abundant polling evidence that the public is inclining to the view that leaving the EU was the wrong decision.

You are welcome to concoct your own reason why this might be.

No evidence for that at all.

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

Barnesian said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

TGOHF said:

Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?

https://twitter.com/peston/status/965131399459205120

I am going to go with option 3....

The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.
.

I agree with that analysis. I think I'll pinch it and add it to "in my opinion". . Hope you don't mind.

We’ll make a Conservative of you yet...

No chance of that! If it wasn't for the ideology, the members and the attitude ... But, as a pragmatist I am open-minded to well argued ideas.

The feature I would add to you suggestion is that in return for a free market in courses and fees I would insist that universities picked up some/most of the cost of means-tested maintenance grants and fees. I would also introduce a free market in student loans with the government as guarantor and collector rather than let the Student Loan Company have a monopoly with exorbitant interest rates.

I’d certainly require universities to have bursary schemes so that no qualified kid can’t go to university for financial reasons - not sure I would put them on the hook for government policy directly as you suggest.

Fine with multiple providers of student loans. No reason why government should actually advance the capital

My idea is to have a levy on University fees, (offset by any bursary and scholarship contributions), that can be used by government to part finance tertiary education policy. Otherwise it is the taxpayer who pays for all the policy. "Why should a poor taxpayer subsidise someone to go to university?" It could even be a progressive levy. The higher the average fee, the higher the % levy.

another_richard said:

AlastairMeeks said:

another_richard said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

To put this prediction into context the stagnant productivity of the last decade has already knocked 20% off potential UK GDP.

Generally if you're lost in the woods you don't improve the situation by slitting your wrists.

Are you really reduced to silly metaphors when someone points out inconvenient facts ?

It's not a silly metaphor to say that someone complaining about inadequate economic performance is being a bit daft by advocating making matters worse.

I realise that you emotionally like the idea of Brexit. It still undermines every other point that you have made for as long as you have been on pb. You want it to work. But all mainstream economic opinion thinks it is going to be a further drag on the economy.

ThomasNashe said:

another_richard said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

-3.9% is equivalent to one bad year.

Or a drag of about 0.3% per annum...?

Is this a soft Brexit scenario then?

For hard brexit is seems outrageously lenient.

And it is a 15 year forecast - remain have lost this argument

Remain have won the argument but Leave don't care.

Meanwhile Leavers wonder why in retrospect the public is inclining to the view that leaving the EU was the wrong decision.

Talking of predictions I remember reading here:

' recession is beckoning with a dark cloak, a skeletal finger and a voice that speaks in block capitals. '

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/29/alistair-meeks-on-the-political-and-economic-crises-of-breathtaking-proportions/#vanilla-comments

Thankfully, the strength of the EU economies appears to have helped stave it off for now.

While increased growth in the EU should help the UK economy to rebalance I suspect that so far the effect has boosted UK GDP by less than 0.1%.

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

-3.9% is equivalent to one bad year.

Or a drag of about 0.3% per annum...?

Is this a soft Brexit scenario then?

For hard brexit is seems outrageously lenient.

And it is a 15 year forecast - remain have lost this argument

Remain have won the argument but Leave don't care.

Meanwhile Leavers wonder why in retrospect the public is inclining to the view that leaving the EU was the wrong decision.

No evidence just wishful thinking

There is abundant polling evidence that the public is inclining to the view that leaving the EU was the wrong decision.

You are welcome to concoct your own reason why this might be.

Sir John remains to be persuaded:

if we look underneath the bonnet at the ebb and flow of voting intentions since the EU referendum, there is relatively little evidence that many Leave voters have jumped ship.

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/are-voters-changing-their-minds-about-brexit/

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

That doesn't mean we shouldn't everything in our power to mitigate the problems - something your leader is failing to do miserably. Surely even your loyalty is being tested by now. I mean, she really is a dud.

Well I do not agree with her being a dud. She may not be talking your kind of Brexit but she is doing as well as anyone could in these circumstances and I am confident she will achieve a deal.

After that another leader will be needed

Why? If she somehow ends with a form of Brexit that is not Malcolm Tucker's proverbial "hurricane of piss" why should she hand over to somebody else?

AlastairMeeks said:

another_richard said:

AlastairMeeks said:

another_richard said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

To put this prediction into context the stagnant productivity of the last decade has already knocked 20% off potential UK GDP.

Generally if you're lost in the woods you don't improve the situation by slitting your wrists.

Are you really reduced to silly metaphors when someone points out inconvenient facts ?

It's not a silly metaphor to say that someone complaining about inadequate economic performance is being a bit daft by advocating making matters worse.

I realise that you emotionally like the idea of Brexit. It still undermines every other point that you have made for as long as you have been on pb. You want it to work. But all mainstream economic opinion thinks it is going to be a further drag on the economy.

Yes.It's difficult to see how Brexit won't be a drag on the economy, now that the plan to use Liam's myriad buccaneering foreign-trade deals to compensate has been quietly abandoned. Presumably the hope is now that native Brits will be obliged to take the jobs vacated by imported EU workers and productivity will soar. Sorry, but I'm not that hopeful.

AlastairMeeks said:

another_richard said:

AlastairMeeks said:

another_richard said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

To put this prediction into context the stagnant productivity of the last decade has already knocked 20% off potential UK GDP.

Generally if you're lost in the woods you don't improve the situation by slitting your wrists.

Are you really reduced to silly metaphors when someone points out inconvenient facts ?

It's not a silly metaphor to say that someone complaining about inadequate economic performance is being a bit daft by advocating making matters worse.

I realise that you emotionally like the idea of Brexit. It still undermines every other point that you have made for as long as you have been on pb. You want it to work. But all mainstream economic opinion thinks it is going to be a further drag on the economy.

Yet the facts are that since June 2016 the UK economy has started to rebalance in the way I have called for as long as I have been on PB.

The trade deficit has significantly fallen while manufaturing production and house building have had their best periods for decades and there are even signs that productivity might finally be increasing.

And what was the alternative offered by Remainers ? The continuation of two decades of Osbrowne economics, of borrow and consume, of stealing from the future to pay for a present lifestyle which we haven't earned.

Now I don't know what the future will be but change was needed and gives a possibility of reform and success whereas the alternative was the continuation of failure and the certainty of ultimate impoverishment.

Stark_Dawning said:

AlastairMeeks said:

another_richard said:

AlastairMeeks said:

another_richard said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

To put this prediction into context the stagnant productivity of the last decade has already knocked 20% off potential UK GDP.

Generally if you're lost in the woods you don't improve the situation by slitting your wrists.

Are you really reduced to silly metaphors when someone points out inconvenient facts ?

It's not a silly metaphor to say that someone complaining about inadequate economic performance is being a bit daft by advocating making matters worse.

I realise that you emotionally like the idea of Brexit. It still undermines every other point that you have made for as long as you have been on pb. You want it to work. But all mainstream economic opinion thinks it is going to be a further drag on the economy.

Yes.It's difficult to see how Brexit won't be a drag on the economy, now that the plan to use Liam's myriad buccaneering foreign-trade deals to compensate has been quietly abandoned. Presumably the hope is now that native Brits will be obliged to take the jobs vacated by imported EU workers and productivity will soar. Sorry, but I'm not that hopeful.

The hope is that unskilled labour is replaced by capital, increasing productivity. Ask anyone who spent six figures a decade ago on an automated car wash what they think of unlimited unskilled immigration.

OldKingCole said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

felix said:

"What The Actual Fuck! #Marr excuses Cox's behaviour because of what he went through"

Not seen the programme but if true it is odd because:

1. It really doesn't excuse the behaviour
&
2. The behaviour preceded his wife's murder.

The point is that the sort of dubious office behaviour that he admits to wouldn't rate media coverage at all except for the fact that he's the husband of an MP who was murdered. Since anyone with any empathy at all feels that must have been rough, it's surely reasonable to cut him some slack and let him sort out his life in private. Surely being related to a victim shouldn't make you fair game for trial by media. Can any of us be absolutely sure we've never said anything that we'd be embarrassed by if we were catapulted into celebrity by the murder of a relative?

It is rarely I disagree with you Nick but he has been found out as a sex pest and labour should be focussing on his victims.

The fact that be is an icon of the left does not excuse the collective way they have tried to mitigate the damage caused and his involvement with save the children

The quote from the Mail site is that once 'It is claimed that Mr Cox drunkenly harassed a female employee at the charity in London, forcing her against a wall outside a bar, holding her by the throat and telling her: 'I want to f*** you.’

Now that is unquestionably an incredibly stupid thing to do and equally unquestionably a resigning matter, but his statement suggests that he’s ashamed of himself.

That is totally out of order, and he is obviously an idiot of the first order if it is true.

In the movie "Darkest Hour", Winston Churchill is shown battling against those Appeasers/Chamberlainites who argued that a dominant European power was too strong for the UK to defy. If went it alone that power would utterly destroy us, there was no future for Britain without a deal which gave the European superpower what it wanted.

I know that there is no comparison between the Third Reich and the EU. I do not need to be told that.

However it also strikes me that there is a huge comparison between the Chamberlainites of 1940 and the whingeing Remoaners of today. Both had a contempt for public opinion. Both believed that Britain could not be an independent country against an overweening sprawling and arrogant foreign superstate, both have utter contempt for those who dared to suggest that there was a "sunlit uplands" beyond total surrender.

Which leads me to conclude sadly that that small minority of remainers who are rightly dubbed "remoaners" are today's modern day Chamberlainites and Appeasers.

Mortimer said:

John_M said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

I am going to go with option 3....

The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

The answer and institutions.

Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.

Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.

You misunderstand: in government).

If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so

Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .

I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.

Means testing . What if you had just failed to get the grant? What then?

It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.

That's correct. We need to stop this reflexive dislike of 'means testing'. We do need robust controls to stop the middle classes gaming the system, naturally.

Absolutely on both counts.

IMHO Labour's continual opposition to means testing puts them way out of whack with the British public's sense of fairness.

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/election_data/status/965180116946038784

It won't when most Tory marginal seats voted Leave

If and only if leaving the EU is the voters' top priority. Do you really think that is the case?

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/MunSecConf/status/964782974083280897

We know - it has all been said before but we are leaving

-3.9% is equivalent to one bad year.

Or a drag of about 0.3% per annum...?

Is this a soft Brexit scenario then?

For hard brexit is seems outrageously lenient.

And it is a 15 year forecast - remain have lost this argument

Remain have won the argument but Leave don't care.

Meanwhile Leavers wonder why in retrospect the public is inclining to the view that leaving the EU was the wrong decision.

No evidence just wishful thinking

There is abundant polling evidence that the public is inclining to the view that leaving the EU was the wrong decision.

You are welcome to concoct your own reason why this might be.

There is also abundant polling evidence that opinion polls aren't actually very accurate predictors of real public opinion as expressed at the ballot box any more.

The final two polls published at 10 pm on 23 June 2016 had remain ahead by 4 and 10 per cent. What happened to May's 100 seat majority which almost all the final polls predicted? Clinton had a 98 per cent chance of winning etc etc.

As for Brexit related polling you seem to get very different results for what is apparently the same question between different pollsters and even with the same pollster depending on what question you ask.

How about we just abolish democratic elections and let you gov or MORI determine who runs the country or what our relationship with the EU is? We could spend the money Saved on holding actual elections on the NHS!

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/965190510540357633

Recidivist said:

Mortimer said:

John_M said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

I am going to go with option 3....

The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

The answer and institutions.

Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.

Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.

You misunderstand: in government).

If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so

Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .

I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.

Means testing . What if you had just failed to get the grant? What then?

It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.

That's correct. We need to stop this reflexive dislike of 'means testing'. We do need robust controls to stop the middle classes gaming the system, naturally.

Absolutely on both counts.

IMHO Labour's continual opposition to means testing puts them way out of whack with the British public's sense of fairness.

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/election_data/status/965180116946038784

It won't when most Tory marginal seats voted Leave

If and only if leaving the EU is the voters' top priority. Do you really think that is the case?

Not at the moment with the Government implementing Brexit, if a future Labour manifesto tried to reverse Brexit and refused to implement any new immigration controls it might be

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/965192380780568576

HYUFD said:

Recidivist said:

Mortimer said:

John_M said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

I am going to go with option 3....

The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

The answer and institutions.

Then there is is is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.

Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.

You misunderstand: in government).

If some richayer to do so

nnections .

I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.

Means testing . What if you had just failed to get the grant? What then?

It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.

That's correct. We need to stop this reflexive dislike of 'means testing'. We do need robust controls to stop the middle classes gaming the system, naturally.

Absolutely on both counts.

IMHO Labour's continual opposition to means testing puts them way out of whack with the British public's sense of fairness.

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/election_data/status/965180116946038784

It won't when most Tory marginal seats voted Leave

If and only if leaving the EU is the voters' top priority. Do you really think that is the case?

Not at the moment with the Government implementing Brexit, if a future Labour government tried to reverse Brexit and refused to implement any new immigration controls it might be

Political debate is being coloured at the moment by small numbers on either side of the Brexit debate who are very noisy and utterly obsessed. I am sure the majority have long since moved on and just want the politicians to get on with it.

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/965192380780568576

Those who think Emily Thornberry is the answer to Labour's problem really hasn't been paying attention.

NickPalmer said:

felix said:

"What The Actual Fuck! #Marr excuses Cox's behaviour because of what he went through"

Not seen the programme but if true it is odd because:

1. It really doesn't excuse the behaviour
&
2. The behaviour preceded his wife's murder.

The point is that the sort of dubious office behaviour that he admits to wouldn't rate media coverage at all except for the fact that he's the husband of an MP who was murdered. Since anyone with any empathy at all feels that must have been rough, it's surely reasonable to cut him some slack and let him sort out his life in private. Surely being related to a victim shouldn't make you fair game for trial by media. Can any of us be absolutely sure we've never said anything that we'd be embarrassed by if we were catapulted into celebrity by the murder of a relative?

That really is not correct Nick.

It would rate media coverage because it is in the sector which is the subject - courtesy of Oxfam - which is the subject of the narrative at present. And it is so because there have been a number of interviews with people who know what they are talking about who are saying that this is systemic, affects more than just Oxfam, has been going on for years and, despite being known about, nothing effective has been done.

Secondly, Mr Cox put himself in the public eye after his wife's death by making himself a bit of a spokesperson for moral behaviour, being against hate etc. So it is understandable that when issues about moral behaviour in a sector in which he works become the story people might look at him. If you're in glasshouses don't throw stones is a useful lesson for Brendan Cox, as it is for others.

Third, it is really disappointing that so many people from a party which makes a great play of being on the side of women, as a generality, find it so hard to condemn bad behaviour aimed at women when it is done by one of them. Or find it so hard to be unequivocal in condemning bad behaviour by Labour men or men on the left. It is as if women's rights only matter when it allows Labour to feel morally superior but that, on no account should it require anyone on the left to behave well to real life women. And if they behave badly well women shouldn't really complain about it because, well, we're Labour.

And that is really Not Good Enough. Not by a long way. Women are a bit sick of being patronised by the left on this. It's all "Women's Rights" on the one hand and "Shut up, I'll deal with this. You go and make the tea." on the other. We're not stupid. We can tell what you really think.

Brendan Cox behaved badly. He has withdrawn from the fray. For the moment he should be left alone. If he's genuinely sorry and learns from his mistakes he can recover. But all those trying to find excuses for him need to take a long hard look at themselves.

Recidivist said:

If and only if leaving the EU is the voters' top priority. Do you really think that is the case?

MPs would be very, very unwise to get into a pissing contest with voters on who knows what is best for Britain.

Cyclefree said:

NickPalmer said:

felix said:

"What The Actual Fuck! #Marr excuses Cox's behaviour because of what he went

The point is that the sort of dubious office behaviour that he admits to wouldn't rate media coverage at all except for the fact that he's the husband of an MP who was murdered. Since anyone with any empathy at all feels that must have been rough, it's surely reasonable to cut him some slack and let him sort out his life in private. Surely being related to a victim shouldn't make you fair game for trial by media. Can any of us be absolutely sure we've never said anything that we'd be embarrassed by if we were catapulted into celebrity by the murder of a relative?

That really is not correct Nick.

It would rate media coverage because it is in the sector which is the subject - courtesy of Oxfam - which is the subject of the narrative at present. And it is so because there have been a number of interviews with people who know what they are talking about who are saying that this is systemic, affects more than just Oxfam, has been going on for years and, despite being known about, nothing effective has been done.

Secondly, Mr Cox put himself in the public eye after his wife's death by making himself a bit of a spokesperson for moral behaviour, being against hate etc. So it is understandable that when issues about moral behaviour in a sector in which he works become the story people might look at him. If you're in glasshouses don't throw stones is a useful lesson for Brendan Cox, as it is for others.

Third, it is really disappointing that so many people from a party which makes a great play of being on the side of women, as a generality, find it so hard to condemn bad behaviour aimed at women when it is done by one of them. Or find it so hard to be unequivocal in condemning bad behaviour by Labour men or men on the left. It is as if women's rights only matter when it allows Labour to feel morally superior but that, on no account should it require anyone on the left to behave well to real life women. And if they behave badly well women shouldn't really complain about it because, well, we're Labour.

And that is really Not Good Enough. Not by a long way. Women are a bit sick of being patronised by the left on this. It's all "Women's Rights" on the one hand and "Shut up, I'll deal with this. You go and make the tea." on the other. We're not stupid. We can tell what you really think.

Brendan Cox behaved badly. He has withdrawn from the fray. For the moment he should be left alone. If he's genuinely sorry and learns from his mistakes he can recover. But all those trying to find excuses for him need to take a long hard look at themselves.

Another excellent post

Cyclefree said:

That really is not correct Nick.

It would rate media coverage because it is in the sector which is the subject - courtesy of Oxfam - which is the subject of the narrative at present. And it is so because there have been a number of interviews with people who know what they are talking about who are saying that this is systemic, affects more than just Oxfam, has been going on for years and, despite being known about, nothing effective has been done.

Secondly, Mr Cox put himself in the public eye after his wife's death by making himself a bit of a spokesperson for moral behaviour, being against hate etc. So it is understandable that when issues about moral behaviour in a sector in which he works become the story people might look at him. If you're in glasshouses don't throw stones is a useful lesson for Brendan Cox, as it is for others.

Third, it is really disappointing that so many people from a party which makes a great play of being on the side of women, as a generality, find it so hard to condemn bad behaviour aimed at women when it is done by one of them. Or find it so hard to be unequivocal in condemning bad behaviour by Labour men or men on the left. It is as if women's rights only matter when it allows Labour to feel morally superior but that, on no account should it require anyone on the left to behave well to real life women. And if they behave badly well women shouldn't really complain about it because, well, we're Labour.

And that is really Not Good Enough. Not by a long way. Women are a bit sick of being patronised by the left on this. It's all "Women's Rights" on the one hand and "Shut up, I'll deal with this. You go and make the tea." on the other. We're not stupid. We can tell what you really think.

Brendan Cox behaved badly. He has withdrawn from the fray. For the moment he should be left alone. If he's genuinely sorry and learns from his mistakes he can recover. But all those trying to find excuses for him need to take a long hard look at themselves.

Another excellent, pithy post.

Labour has a hypocrisy problem.

https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/965081873541033984

ydoethur said:

Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.

Martin Lewis was on a bit later and did a better job of explaining that the university fees loan is effectively a tax, or as he preferred it a contribution scheme, than any government of higher education bod I've ever heard. He explained quite clearly that the people who would benefit most from fees being cut and intererest rates reduced would be the wealthiest earners, and the people harmed the most would be poorer students who might find it even harder to get into university if places are cut to make up from a drop in fees.

Lewis's view was that if you really want to make things better the current scheme would likely have to be abolished rather than tinkered with.

Cyclefree said:

It's not really hypocrisy which is the problem. It's that they don't appear to understand that principles are not clothes you wear, depending on what is fashionable today. Or banners to wave at the opposition. They are meant to be moral imperatives to live by.

Too many people think that principles are things to proclaim rather than guides to action.

Labour have this problem with women' rights and gay rights and racism and no doubt other issues. But the Tories and the Lib Dems also have their blind spots too..

Whether now fair or not, the Tories' blind spots are fully priced in by the voters, vehemently so by those who don't like them.

The LibDems made their blind spot party leader, with his issues on gay sex and sin.

But I do think it is hypocrisy with Labour though. They believe they are infallible in their portfolio of positions on all moral issues of the day, as they view them, from their high horse up on the moral high ground. So when they fall short, that should allow them a free pass or two. Or three.

Yorkcity said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

felix said:

"What The Actual Fuck! #Marr excuses Cox's behaviour because of what he went through"

Not seen the programme but if true it is odd because:

1. It really doesn't excuse the behaviour
&
2. The behaviour preceded his wife's murder.

The point is that the sort of dubious office behaviour that he admits to wouldn't rate media coverage at all except for the fact that he's the husband of an MP who was murdered. Since anyone with any empathy at all feels that must have been rough, it's surely reasonable to cut him some slack and let him sort out his life in private. Surely being related to a victim shouldn't make you fair game for trial by media. Can any of us be absolutely sure we've never said anything that we'd be embarrassed by if we were catapulted into celebrity by the murder of a relative?

It is rarely I disagree with you Nick but he has been found out as a sex pest and labour should be focussing on his victims.

The fact that be is an icon of the left does not excuse the collective way they have tried to mitigate the damage caused and his involvement with save the children

To be honest , it comes as a shock , when you respect someone .As with Kevin Spacey a reputed actor.

If that should be 'reputable' (as in 'an actor of repute') can I please nominate as an early contender for Freudian slip of the year?

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/965081873541033984

There is a difference between sharing agencies, and being recipients of intelligence. We sure as hell don't want any of our EU pals being privy to our spying on them.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/965081873541033984

Ah, another one of those journeys I see.

ydoethur said:

I spend half my life explaining that to students at the start of the UCAS options process in Year 11 (because I'm the only member of staff at my school who has worked in HE as a lecturer). Indeed the real irony of the NUS protests was that the scheme they proposed instead was much less generous.

I didn't hear the interview however it's easy to see how tinkering at the edges could make things worse. That said, there are other problems in the sector anyway as I noted earlier of which fees are but a minor symptom and may not actually be relevant to any solutions needed.

Lewis said that for the average graduate it's basically £900* a year for 30 years, and that most of them will never have to repay the full principal never mind the interest, so cutting rates is irrelevant for all but the top earners.

He basically said that cutting fees and interest rates will make people feel good, but would benefit only the wealthy, and that the poorest students might find there are fewer university places available.

We have a graduate tax in all but name today, nothing being proposed by the government is likely to improve it much.

* Currently, as the point they start paying will rise quite sharply soon, and of course the amount is subject to inflation and income rises.

Alistair said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/965081873541033984

Ah, another one of those journeys I see.

Cook has completely missed the point. Why on earth should an independent Scotland have, for example, access to GCHQ's SIGINT operation?

We'd doubtless be delighted to sign a second party agreement with them, as we have with several other nations, but while we share some elements of collection with Five Eyes nations, we don't even allow them unfettered access to our internal processing.

Sharing intelligence in pursuit of common goals - e.g. the fight against Salafist terrorism is a whole other thing. We'd continue to do that, Brexit or no - our gentleperson's agreement with the Europeans dates back to the Club de Berne in '71.

John_M said:

Alistair said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/965081873541033984

Ah, another one of those journeys I see.

Cook has completely missed the point. Why on earth should an independent Scotland have, for example, access to GCHQ's SIGINT operation?

We'd doubtless be delighted to sign a second party agreement with them, as we have with several other nations, but while we share some elements of collection with Five Eyes nations, we don't even allow them unfettered access to our internal processing.

Sharing intelligence in pursuit of common goals - e.g. the fight against Salafist terrorism is a whole other thing. We'd continue to do that, Brexit or no - our gentleperson's agreement with the Europeans dates back to the Club de Berne in '71.

I misread that for a moment as 'the fight against Socialism.'

ydoethur said:

The other advantage of loans vs tax is that you can levy it on people who move abroad. (I know in practice the SLC led by the egregious Kevin O'Cockup have never have managed to get money out of expats, but he must be close to retirement after 26 years in post and if somebody of ability and drive replaced him that could change.)

It does however make you wonder a bit what will happen in 25 years when these loans start being written off.

That's the time to switch to a tax and never stop them paying.