Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
Being that thin means you generally can be pretty good at those distances . But as for seeing him in the army, no he needs to bulk up !
Nah to be fair 47 minutes is a very decent time in the 10K. That’s faster than me.
I’d say it’s ok, but no great shakes. Running club would put that in the bottom 10% but that’s specifically runners. C.F. to the general public it’s good. (And way better than my best 10K time, but my excuse is that I was built to play front row in rugby, not go running…)
We’re talking about the average person. The average 10K time is something like an hour. 47 minutes in the public will put you comfortably in the top 10% of runners.
I don’t think the average 10K time is an hour amongst people who go running. But pretty good.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
Every policy so far has just confirmed the Tories don’t want the votes of young people.
It might work here but long term they are dooming themselves. One day they might want to think about how best to appeal to voters like me.
The proposed policies aren't even sensible / workable. There are policies are not great for certain groups in the short term, but the right thing to do for the population in the long term.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
Government helps pick up the tab if you have children. Doesn't mean it should pick who you can have children with.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
Absolutely. If the state thinks more people should be studying STEM (which doesn't strike me as an unreasonable position) perhaps it can subsidise the studying of it (also doesn't seem an unreasonable position). But if there's a market for people studying English Literature, and good academics are keen to provide that service - well, great.
There's also the point of how do you judge the "value" before taking into account the wider economy and certain sectors - things you can't know 100% beforehand. A humanities degree from one of the top but non-Oxbridge universities isn't monetarily "worth" what people thought it would be in say, 2006, because pay has stagnated, there's less of a culture of degree as CV, and some industries that favoured those degrees have entrenched. You also might get an oversupply of a "good" degree.
Conversely, any degree which teaches you some video editing skills may be "worth" if it teaches you how to make money through streaming. Many of those are ostensibly what were once - and still are- thought Mickey Mouse. Business degrees were once a big deal, but now are often laughed at.
Or, to take Leon's great love - AI - as an example. If he's close to right, some rather prestigious degrees will not be worth what people paid for them because the jobs won't exist and there will be a huge oversupply of graduates. Does a law or maths degree suddenly become Mickey Mouse if the high level job in the city it once got you is now done via algorithm?
It's impossible to quantify beyond you needing to have a) minimum standards of teaching and b) a market allowing kids to gravitate towards the ones that provide the best value for those taking them - whether that's academic or career-wise.
Maybe we'll need a load of ceramic art historians if AI is doing the 9 to 5.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
Government helps pick up the tab if you have children. Doesn't mean it should pick who you can have children with.
That's pretty ambitious. Most of the low hanging fruit is done already, so these are the more difficult patient pathways. Hard to see it happening without significant investment in new capacity. A bit of weekend overtime won't do it, not least because we are doing that already.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
Being that thin means you generally can be pretty good at those distances . But as for seeing him in the army, no he needs to bulk up !
Nah to be fair 47 minutes is a very decent time in the 10K. That’s faster than me.
I’d say it’s ok, but no great shakes. Running club would put that in the bottom 10% but that’s specifically runners. C.F. to the general public it’s good. (And way better than my best 10K time, but my excuse is that I was built to play front row in rugby, not go running…)
We’re talking about the average person. The average 10K time is something like an hour. 47 minutes in the public will put you comfortably in the top 10% of runners.
I don’t think the average 10K time is an hour amongst people who go running. But pretty good.
10k 47 minutes is just under 8 minute miles, which is a number I can relate to - strangely.
I'm not allowed to say whether 23.5 minutes is a good Parkrun anymore. Perhaps it's a good trans-itional figure, and good for short trousers with Cuban heels.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
What's the problem with 13th century Mongolian pottery studies?
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
I don't believe it, not as a squaddie private anyway.
I suspect he assumes Winchester boys go in as officers.
Anyway only 5% of 18 year olds will be able to do their National Service in the armed forces, so 40% of the private school output will be disappointed.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
When you find the list of degrees, we can talk.
You disagree with the premise that some degrees have greater values than others?
Well at least Sir Ed brought some colour to the campaign today when falling off his paddle board (otherwise it would have been Farage ranting about the boats in a pub). Better than Starmer and Sunak wandering around factories all day with workers bored whitless listening to them rambling on when they should be getting on with their work.
What happened to campaign rallies and meeting voters in the street and getting on your soapbox?
Too risky.
The last time SKS met the public was off a train in Scotland.
I said at the time he wouldn't be able to hold any public events at GE2024.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
What's the problem with 13th century Mongolian pottery studies?
Well if hordes of people want to study it, you Khan’t get the lecturers.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
When you find the list of degrees, we can talk.
You disagree with the premise that some degrees have greater values than others?
If we’re going to make people pay for them, then it’s irrelevant.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
The Law of Sod says all unpaid student debt gets written off now !
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
Government helps pick up the tab if you have children. Doesn't mean it should pick who you can have children with.
But it does that on a conditional basis, no?
Does it? It pays for natal care, medical treatment, schools, childcare, and direct payments to parents.
Yes, some are unrestricted, but others like tax credit are not.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
Government helps pick up the tab if you have children. Doesn't mean it should pick who you can have children with.
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
When you find the list of degrees, we can talk.
You disagree with the premise that some degrees have greater values than others?
If we’re going to make people pay for them, then it’s irrelevant.
That’s the whole point, we are not. Barely over half of university graduates will repay their loan under the new system. I don’t have the statistics, but I would bet that there is a correlation between the kind of degree someone got, and the probability they would repay in full.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
When you find the list of degrees, we can talk.
You disagree with the premise that some degrees have greater values than others?
If we’re going to make people pay for them, then it’s irrelevant.
That’s the whole point, we are not. Barely over half of university graduates will repay their loan under the new system. I don’t have the statistics, but I would bet that there is a correlation between the kind of degree someone got, and the probability they would repay in full.
It isn’t barely more than half. They changed the system specifically to make most people pay.
When you find the list of degrees then we can talk. Until then, enough.
Rachel Reeves, the Labour shadow chancellor, ruled out any new tax rises if Labour wins power and promised never to “play fast and loose” with the country’s finances.
At her first event of the election campaign at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby on Tuesday, she was asked whether Labour would need to put up any taxes to ease pressure on public services.
She said: “There are no additional tax rises needed beyond the ones that I’ve said.”
Haven't the IFS said there needs to be big cuts in the next 5 years if no additional taxes? And that factors in the massive fiscal drag already programmed in.
Keir Starmer doesn't care about Black and Muslim people.
He has one rule for white MPs like Steve Reed, Barry Sheerman and Neil Coyle and another for Black and Brown MPs - especially women as we see with treatment of @HackneyAbbott
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
When you find the list of degrees, we can talk.
You disagree with the premise that some degrees have greater values than others?
If we’re going to make people pay for them, then it’s irrelevant.
That’s the whole point, we are not. Barely over half of university graduates will repay their loan under the new system. I don’t have the statistics, but I would bet that there is a correlation between the kind of degree someone got, and the probability they would repay in full.
It isn’t barely more than half. They changed the system specifically to make most people pay.
If 95% of students doing 13th century Mongolian pottery don’t repay their loans, perhaps it is worth reducing the subsidy given to universities to teach this course.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
Cool, you just need to tell me the ones the Tories plan to make illegal then we can talk.
Nothing the Tories are coming up with matters as they are going to get smashed. You could see a different funding system that prioritises certain degrees. Many would see medicine, nursing, dentistry etc subsidised or free. Perhaps less so for some of the more esoteric degrees, but I think in general encouraging people to study and better themselves is a good thing.
Keir Starmer doesn't care about Black and Muslim people.
He has one rule for white MPs like Steve Reed, Barry Sheerman and Neil Coyle and another for Black and Brown MPs - especially women as we see with treatment of @HackneyAbbott
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
Cool, you just need to tell me the ones the Tories plan to make illegal then we can talk.
Nothing the Tories are coming up with matters as they are going to get smashed. You could see a different funding system that prioritises certain degrees. Many would see medicine, nursing, dentistry etc subsidised or free. Perhaps less so for some of the more esoteric degrees, but I think in general encouraging people to study and better themselves is a good thing.
There’s certainly an argument for making the most important degrees free. And then the others being more expensive. But people fundamentally can study what they want.
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
Well at least Sir Ed brought some colour to the campaign today when falling off his paddle board (otherwise it would have been Farage ranting about the boats in a pub). Better than Starmer and Sunak wandering around factories all day with workers bored whitless listening to them rambling on when they should be getting on with their work.
What happened to campaign rallies and meeting voters in the street and getting on your soapbox?
Too risky.
The last time SKS met the public was off a train in Scotland.
I said at the time he wouldn't be able to hold any public events at GE2024.
Seems I am correct so far.
It is almost enough to make you miss Boris and Jezza, at least they had some charisma and knew how to draw and work a crowd and were unafraid to get out and meet the public not just do stage managed site visits.
Instead both Rishi and Sir Keir seem to be following the Theresa May school of election campaigning
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
When you find the list of degrees, we can talk.
You disagree with the premise that some degrees have greater values than others?
Yes my BSc(Econ) (Hons) in Politics at what is now a Russell Group University is neither use nor f*****' ornament but I had a nice time for three years, rubbed shoulders with willing debs and networked for the future. They won't be cutting that old s**** now will they?
This is the thin edge of the wedge and a case of, toss a £44b pa business, which has a substantial balance of trade benefit, in the bin marked "exclusively for the elite 5%".
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
Politics is really surreal at the moment, isn't it?
The opposition Labour Party is being excessively cautious because they know they're going to be in power shortly and the electorate will hold them to account if they fuck up.
The governing Conservative Party is being utterly reckless, throwing out bizarre, uncosted policies with gay abandon because they know they can't be held accountable if they fuck up because they won't be in power so won't have to implement their stream of consciousness stuff.
AP (via Seattle Times) - Democrats plan to nominate Biden by virtual roll call to meet Ohio ballot deadline
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden will be formally nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee through a virtual roll call ahead of the party’s official convention in Chicago in August — a maneuver that will allow Biden to appear on the November ballot in Ohio.
The Democratic National Convention, where the president would otherwise be formally nominated, comes after Ohio’s ballot deadline of Aug. 7. The party’s convention is scheduled for Aug. 19-22.
Ohio lawmakers have moved the deadline in the past for candidates of both parties, although they had not done so yet for Biden this year and were called to a rare special session by Gov. Mike DeWine to address the issue.
The virtual proceedings will allow Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to get the party’s formal nod and will be very similar to the process used in 2020, when the convention went virtual because of the COVID-19 pandemic. . . .
The DNC on Tuesday did not say when the virtual roll call will take place, but it is expected in the weeks after the committee’s rules and bylaws committee votes to propose changes to the roll call process. That committee vote is scheduled for June 4. . . .
SSI - Practical effect is to make Ohio special legislative session moot, thus removing (some of) the Republican majority's leverage to hobble the Buckeye State's process for qualifying voter initiatives and referendums for future ballots. This after voters enacted - despite GOP opposition - measures at 2023 general election to safeguard abortion access and legalize marijuana.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
When you find the list of degrees, we can talk.
You disagree with the premise that some degrees have greater values than others?
If we’re going to make people pay for them, then it’s irrelevant.
That’s the whole point, we are not. Barely over half of university graduates will repay their loan under the new system. I don’t have the statistics, but I would bet that there is a correlation between the kind of degree someone got, and the probability they would repay in full.
It isn’t barely more than half. They changed the system specifically to make most people pay.
If 95% of students doing 13th century Mongolian pottery don’t repay their loans, perhaps it is worth reducing the subsidy given to universities to teach this course.
If Mongolian pottery is cheaper to teach, and the university is using the funds to subsidise other courses (often the way in Liberal Arts) then the student may well be repaying the real cost, and the expensive degree not covering its costs.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
Cool, you just need to tell me the ones the Tories plan to make illegal then we can talk.
Nothing the Tories are coming up with matters as they are going to get smashed. You could see a different funding system that prioritises certain degrees. Many would see medicine, nursing, dentistry etc subsidised or free. Perhaps less so for some of the more esoteric degrees, but I think in general encouraging people to study and better themselves is a good thing.
There’s certainly an argument for making the most important degrees free. And then the others being more expensive. But people fundamentally can study what they want.
They can if the courses are available. That may not be a given. Courses and departments are not fixed in stone. A few years ago our department came pretty close to being closed, despite its high reputation. At least one other pharmacy department moved university.
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
State directed knowledge and intellectual inquiry? No thanks.
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
AP (via Seattle Times) - Democrats plan to nominate Biden by virtual roll call to meet Ohio ballot deadline
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden will be formally nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee through a virtual roll call ahead of the party’s official convention in Chicago in August — a maneuver that will allow Biden to appear on the November ballot in Ohio.
The Democratic National Convention, where the president would otherwise be formally nominated, comes after Ohio’s ballot deadline of Aug. 7. The party’s convention is scheduled for Aug. 19-22.
Ohio lawmakers have moved the deadline in the past for candidates of both parties, although they had not done so yet for Biden this year and were called to a rare special session by Gov. Mike DeWine to address the issue.
The virtual proceedings will allow Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to get the party’s formal nod and will be very similar to the process used in 2020, when the convention went virtual because of the COVID-19 pandemic. . . .
The DNC on Tuesday did not say when the virtual roll call will take place, but it is expected in the weeks after the committee’s rules and bylaws committee votes to propose changes to the roll call process. That committee vote is scheduled for June 4. . . .
SSI - Practical effect is to make Ohio special legislative session moot, thus removing (some of) the Republican majority's leverage to hobble the Buckeye State's process for qualifying voter initiatives and referendums for future ballots. This after voters enacted - despite GOP opposition - measures at 2023 general election to safeguard abortion access and legalize marijuana.
Probably sensible, just to avoid further messing about. And in future don't schedule on the assumption that (as in previous years) the deadline would be extended.
The days of the parties not using every rule and procedure to frustrate the other are long past - just wait to see all the challenges after the November elections (and the challenges and violence if Trump loses).
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
13th century Mongolian pottery studies could be invaluable if you work in a museum with ancient Mongolian pottery
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
Everyone lies on CVs. That day you spent on a dry stone walking course turns into regular volunteering for the National Trust.
Not me, personally. In any event if you do lie and get found out, you don't get the job.
There are going to check the national trust volunteering part. And to be honest references have gone now aside of confirming if X worked for Y for Z times.
Keir Starmer doesn't care about Black and Muslim people.
He has one rule for white MPs like Steve Reed, Barry Sheerman and Neil Coyle and another for Black and Brown MPs - especially women as we see with treatment of @HackneyAbbott
It's racist.
Have they forgotten about Corbyn so quickly?
Yes I personally think its more of a factional thing but the bloke charged with investigating racism in the party by SKS concluded that there was a hierarchy of racism under SKS. With racism against brown people taken less seriously than antisemitism so who knows.
All the decisions on these matters are taken by white men. Not a good look
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
13th century Mongolian pottery studies could be invaluable if you work in a museum with ancient Mongolian pottery
I’ll grant you that a handful of 13th century Mongolian pottery graduates might be a Good Thing, but that doesn’t mean the state should fund an unlimited number of them.
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
I know quite a lot about apprenticeships - they are of very mixed quality. If the Tory policy came to pass, it wouldn't take long for folk to start talking about the poor-quality, mickey-mouse apprenticeships, that add little value, that have replaced the poor quality, mickey-mouse degrees. Especially if the apprenticeship programme is ramped up quickly without serious employer involvement.
The good thing about a history degree is no one expects you to get a job involving history, so there's no sympathetic disappointment if you do not.
The main function of the degree is enable you to go 'Akshually, that's not the way it happened, you see...'
History professor, History teacher, museum curator, there are options to directly use it
Never said otherwise. I said people don't expect you to get a job relating to it, which given how many of said direct options there are is no surprise.
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
Being that thin means you generally can be pretty good at those distances . But as for seeing him in the army, no he needs to bulk up !
Nah to be fair 47 minutes is a very decent time in the 10K. That’s faster than me.
I’d say it’s ok, but no great shakes. Running club would put that in the bottom 10% but that’s specifically runners. C.F. to the general public it’s good. (And way better than my best 10K time, but my excuse is that I was built to play front row in rugby, not go running…)
We’re talking about the average person. The average 10K time is something like an hour. 47 minutes in the public will put you comfortably in the top 10% of runners.
I don’t think the average 10K time is an hour amongst people who go running. But pretty good.
Taking London Vitality 10k last year, median time for men is about 52 minutes. For men 40-44, 47 minutes is top third.
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
Point is, the system only works if you average across everyone who does a degree- not individuals or courses.
Think of it like venture capital. It might be brilliant if you can predict investments are going to repay massively in advance, so you only put money into those. But you can't; so you distribute the money more widely because the wins outweigh the losses.
(That's the origin of those high interest rates, actually. The idea is that those who make lots after their degree offset those who don't. If you actually pay off your student loan before it's written off, you've paid more than the cost of your degree.)
That's before we even get onto the observation that a lot of graduates who benefit society massively aren't paid a lot for it, and plenty of those who make a packet are relatively useless, merely scraping 0.1 percent of whatever cash flows across their desk.
TLDR: It's pretty silly to talk about the writeoffs as taxpayers' money that's been lost, the plan was that financially sucessful students would cover that. And beyond that, government doesn't put much money into undergraduate teaching (about £10k for clinical students, £1500 for lab subjects, next to nothing for anything else).
The Mail are running a really horrible campaign against Rayner. There’s an undertone of sexism certainly.
How many times across how many weeks was Rayner the main story on news bulletins across the radio and tv networks, and front page on the Mail? Her exoneration (still guilty as hell according to Mel Stride on C4 News, who wistfully suggested GMP had passed the case to Stockport Council and HMRC for further action to be taken) was story 5 on the BBC PM programme. Hardly worth mentioning really. I wonder if she gets the apology she deserves from Hodges?
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
Being that thin means you generally can be pretty good at those distances . But as for seeing him in the army, no he needs to bulk up !
Nah to be fair 47 minutes is a very decent time in the 10K. That’s faster than me.
I’d say it’s ok, but no great shakes. Running club would put that in the bottom 10% but that’s specifically runners. C.F. to the general public it’s good. (And way better than my best 10K time, but my excuse is that I was built to play front row in rugby, not go running…)
We’re talking about the average person. The average 10K time is something like an hour. 47 minutes in the public will put you comfortably in the top 10% of runners.
I don’t think the average 10K time is an hour amongst people who go running. But pretty good.
Taking London Vitality 10k last year, median time for men is about 52 minutes. For men 40-44, 47 minutes is top third.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
State directed knowledge and intellectual inquiry? No thanks.
Mikey Gove's finally slunk off embarrassed. Remarkably some Tories still think he did a good at education. Your regular reminder Cameron won teachers in 2010 before the twat who wrote opinion columns decided that was a transferrable skill to writing a curriculum.
Rishi Sunak has said he would have opted for military national service rather than volunteering had he been called upon to serve his country.
Telegraph
Dear me it really is vomit inducing . Does anyone believe this nauseating claptrap from Sunak ? He can barely lift a tin of beans , a rucksack would see him hospitalized !
You can't believe anything Sunak says:
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
I know quite a lot about apprenticeships - they are of very mixed quality. If the Tory policy came to pass, it wouldn't take long for folk to start talking about the poor-quality, mickey-mouse apprenticeships, that add little value, that have replaced the poor quality, mickey-mouse degrees. Especially if the apprenticeship programme is ramped up quickly without serious employer involvement.
In 2010 I had my first full time job, which was part of a government programme to fund temporary job posts for 6 months for the unemployed.
I think it was mainly to keep people out of the unemployment figures, but in fairness it did get my foot in the door. I had very little to do though.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
Point is, the system only works if you average across everyone who does a degree- not individuals or courses.
Think of it like venture capital. It might be brilliant if you can predict investments are going to repay massively in advance, so you only put money into those. But you can't; so you distribute the money more widely because the wins outweigh the losses.
(That's the origin of those high interest rates, actually. The idea is that those who make lots after their degree offset those who don't. If you actually pay off your student loan before it's written off, you've paid more than the cost of your degree.)
That's before we even get onto the observation that a lot of graduates who benefit society massively aren't paid a lot for it, and plenty of those who make a packet are relatively useless, merely scraping 0.1 percent of whatever cash flows across their desk.
TLDR: It's pretty silly to talk about the writeoffs as taxpayers' money that's been lost, the plan was that financially sucessful students would cover that. And beyond that, government doesn't put much money into undergraduate teaching (about £10k for clinical students, £1500 for lab subjects, next to nothing for anything else).
I was thinking something along those lines. 10% of English Lit students might go on to be successful journalists, 0.1% might end up writing airport thriller novels and earning 500k a year. 10% may never earn more than minimum wage in their local coffee shop. And there will be everything in between.
Or drama students. 99% of them will never be successful actors. But how much benefit do we get from having a successful film industry in the UK, even if 99% of drama students are individually never successful? How many cameramen, editors etc are employed as a result.
I know quite a lot about apprenticeships - they are of very mixed quality. If the Tory policy came to pass, it wouldn't take long for folk to start talking about the poor-quality, mickey-mouse apprenticeships, that add little value, that have replaced the poor quality, mickey-mouse degrees. Especially if the apprenticeship programme is ramped up quickly without serious employer involvement.
In 2010 I had my first full time job, which was part of a government programme to fund temporary job posts for 6 months for the unemployed.
I think it was mainly to keep people out of the unemployment figures, but in fairness it did get my foot in the door. I had very little to do though.
Ha - I was exactly the same, but back in 1979 - a government-funded STEP (Special Temporary Employment Programme) job for unemployable graduates, as I then was. Plus ca change, eh.
Keir Starmer doesn't care about Black and Muslim people.
He has one rule for white MPs like Steve Reed, Barry Sheerman and Neil Coyle and another for Black and Brown MPs - especially women as we see with treatment of @HackneyAbbott
It's racist.
Grow up Owls. Can I tell you what is racist? Doing nothing when Luciana Berger is being hounded by Labour Party members, or likening anti-Semitism to taunting someone having ginger hair.
Abbott has been sidelined, like Corbyn, because they are entitled liabilities and not because of her colour.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
When you find the list of degrees, we can talk.
You disagree with the premise that some degrees have greater values than others?
If we’re going to make people pay for them, then it’s irrelevant.
That’s the whole point, we are not. Barely over half of university graduates will repay their loan under the new system. I don’t have the statistics, but I would bet that there is a correlation between the kind of degree someone got, and the probability they would repay in full.
I have a mechanical engineering degree and two post-graduate law diplomas but haven’t even made a dent in the loans.
I know quite a lot about apprenticeships - they are of very mixed quality. If the Tory policy came to pass, it wouldn't take long for folk to start talking about the poor-quality, mickey-mouse apprenticeships, that add little value, that have replaced the poor quality, mickey-mouse degrees. Especially if the apprenticeship programme is ramped up quickly without serious employer involvement.
In 2010 I had my first full time job, which was part of a government programme to fund temporary job posts for 6 months for the unemployed.
I think it was mainly to keep people out of the unemployment figures, but in fairness it did get my foot in the door. I had very little to do though.
Ha - I was exactly the same, but back in 1979 - a government-funded STEP (Special Temporary Employment Programme) job for unemployable graduates, as I then was. Plus ca change, eh.
Incidentally having so little to do in the run up to that election is how I stumbled across PB.
I know quite a lot about apprenticeships - they are of very mixed quality. If the Tory policy came to pass, it wouldn't take long for folk to start talking about the poor-quality, mickey-mouse apprenticeships, that add little value, that have replaced the poor quality, mickey-mouse degrees. Especially if the apprenticeship programme is ramped up quickly without serious employer involvement.
In 2010 I had my first full time job, which was part of a government programme to fund temporary job posts for 6 months for the unemployed.
I think it was mainly to keep people out of the unemployment figures, but in fairness it did get my foot in the door. I had very little to do though.
Ha - I was exactly the same, but back in 1979 - a government-funded STEP (Special Temporary Employment Programme) job for unemployable graduates, as I then was. Plus ca change, eh.
Incidentally having so little to do in the run up to that election is how I stumbled across PB.
I know quite a lot about apprenticeships - they are of very mixed quality. If the Tory policy came to pass, it wouldn't take long for folk to start talking about the poor-quality, mickey-mouse apprenticeships, that add little value, that have replaced the poor quality, mickey-mouse degrees. Especially if the apprenticeship programme is ramped up quickly without serious employer involvement.
In 2010 I had my first full time job, which was part of a government programme to fund temporary job posts for 6 months for the unemployed.
I think it was mainly to keep people out of the unemployment figures, but in fairness it did get my foot in the door. I had very little to do though.
Ha - I was exactly the same, but back in 1979 - a government-funded STEP (Special Temporary Employment Programme) job for unemployable graduates, as I then was. Plus ca change, eh.
Incidentally having so little to do in the run up to that election is how I stumbled across PB.
And it was all downhill from there.....
You mentioned productivity earlier. Perhaps we should shut down PB for the greater good.
I was thinking earlier, was it 2010, where we had a poster who would pop up only to post leaks of latest polling several hours early? And they were always correct.
I know quite a lot about apprenticeships - they are of very mixed quality. If the Tory policy came to pass, it wouldn't take long for folk to start talking about the poor-quality, mickey-mouse apprenticeships, that add little value, that have replaced the poor quality, mickey-mouse degrees. Especially if the apprenticeship programme is ramped up quickly without serious employer involvement.
In 2010 I had my first full time job, which was part of a government programme to fund temporary job posts for 6 months for the unemployed.
I think it was mainly to keep people out of the unemployment figures, but in fairness it did get my foot in the door. I had very little to do though.
Ha - I was exactly the same, but back in 1979 - a government-funded STEP (Special Temporary Employment Programme) job for unemployable graduates, as I then was. Plus ca change, eh.
Incidentally having so little to do in the run up to that election is how I stumbled across PB.
And it was all downhill from there.....
You mentioned productivity earlier. Perhaps we should shut down PB for the greater good.
Surely if it’s my money I’m spending I can do whatever degree I want.
This seems incredibly un-Conservative. I suppose I could see the argument (and might support the idea) if they were going to make the remainder free but they’re not.
Indeed. It's as I was saying earlier, I'm generally guided by the principle of giving people the freedom to do what they want. If people want to spend however much money on a degree in 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, so what? It's their money, not Rishi's.
While many people go to university to study to improve their employment prospects, some may be there to enrich themselves and learn more about the things that interest them.
Are philosophy students inherently employable? Probably not. Should the government be allowed to end the teaching of philosophy at undergraduate level because not enough philosophy students end up in high paying graduate jobs?
It's more mindless authoritarianism dressed up as "common sense".
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s their/your money. Isn’t there a subsidy to the HE sector paid to universities by the government?
Oh so when I paid off my student loan you’re saying it wasn’t my money?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am questioning the statement that (to paraphrase) it’s their money so they can do what they like with it. If the government is paying a subsidy to the university, and you don’t repay your loan, there is a net cost to the taxpayer for you having taken that course.
Since the majority of people pay back the loans now, I would say it is their money. Either way, why is it for the government to tell people what to study?
The majority of students starting now, but only just. But that’s not relevant to the point I was making which was about the claim that people should be able to do whatever course they want because it’s their money. If they paid it all upfront, without the subsidy, perhaps.
Why should the government tell people what to study? Well it does that for most of everyone’s education….
It doesn’t for university education. It’s supposed to be adults making independent decisions. This is a stupid policy.
But the government has to pick up the tab for your decision. Therefore it should have a say in the matter.
They didn’t pick up the tab for my decision. I paid it all back + interest. And I’d argue the country has benefited a lot in return.
We’re talking about the person doing 13th century Mongolian pottery studies, or other similarly questionable degrees. Yes, a lot of people go and do valuable subjects at university, but I sincerely doubt those courses will be cut.
Do you have a list of the degrees? Right now you’re just plucking them out of thin air.
No, I don’t. I was quoting the one mentioned in the first post I replied to which is no doubt made up. However, that doesn’t mean there are not degrees that are more valuable to society than others. If the government has finite resources, it should surely prioritise investing money in those degrees that benefit society the most.
When you find the list of degrees, we can talk.
You disagree with the premise that some degrees have greater values than others?
If we’re going to make people pay for them, then it’s irrelevant.
That’s the whole point, we are not. Barely over half of university graduates will repay their loan under the new system. I don’t have the statistics, but I would bet that there is a correlation between the kind of degree someone got, and the probability they would repay in full.
I have a mechanical engineering degree and two post-graduate law diplomas but haven’t even made a dent in the loans.
And the point is... most people aren't meant to. It's a graduate tax that was called something different because reasons. Paying off the loan completely means that you've hit the jackpot and paid back several times more than your degree cost, but you've earned so much that I'm not sure you can begrudge that.
It's actually quite an elegant system. The only question is whether the current government is too dim to understand it, or so malign that they are happy to misrepresent what's going on.
I know quite a lot about apprenticeships - they are of very mixed quality. If the Tory policy came to pass, it wouldn't take long for folk to start talking about the poor-quality, mickey-mouse apprenticeships, that add little value, that have replaced the poor quality, mickey-mouse degrees. Especially if the apprenticeship programme is ramped up quickly without serious employer involvement.
In 2010 I had my first full time job, which was part of a government programme to fund temporary job posts for 6 months for the unemployed.
I think it was mainly to keep people out of the unemployment figures, but in fairness it did get my foot in the door. I had very little to do though.
Ha - I was exactly the same, but back in 1979 - a government-funded STEP (Special Temporary Employment Programme) job for unemployable graduates, as I then was. Plus ca change, eh.
Incidentally having so little to do in the run up to that election is how I stumbled across PB.
And it was all downhill from there.....
You mentioned productivity earlier. Perhaps we should shut down PB for the greater good.
Instant 1% uplift in GDP.
Funny you should say that ... I haven't contributed on here nearly as much recently now that I have retired.
Surely the greatest interview exchange has to be:-
Interviewer - "What's your greatest weakness?" Candidate - "Honesty." Interviewer - "Oh, I don't think that's a weakness!" Candidate - "I don't give a toss what you think."
Comments
The main function of the degree is enable you to go 'Akshually, that's not the way it happened, you see...'
There's also the point of how do you judge the "value" before taking into account the wider economy and certain sectors - things you can't know 100% beforehand. A humanities degree from one of the top but non-Oxbridge universities isn't monetarily "worth" what people thought it would be in say, 2006, because pay has stagnated, there's less of a culture of degree as CV, and some industries that favoured those degrees have entrenched. You also might get an oversupply of a "good" degree.
Conversely, any degree which teaches you some video editing skills may be "worth" if it teaches you how to make money through streaming. Many of those are ostensibly what were once - and still are- thought Mickey Mouse. Business degrees were once a big deal, but now are often laughed at.
Or, to take Leon's great love - AI - as an example. If he's close to right, some rather prestigious degrees will not be worth what people paid for them because the jobs won't exist and there will be a huge oversupply of graduates. Does a law or maths degree suddenly become Mickey Mouse if the high level job in the city it once got you is now done via algorithm?
It's impossible to quantify beyond you needing to have a) minimum standards of teaching and b) a market allowing kids to gravitate towards the ones that provide the best value for those taking them - whether that's academic or career-wise.
Maybe we'll need a load of ceramic art historians if AI is doing the 9 to 5.
I'm not allowed to say whether 23.5 minutes is a good Parkrun anymore. Perhaps it's a good trans-itional figure, and good for short trousers with Cuban heels.
Anyway only 5% of 18 year olds will be able to do their National Service in the armed forces, so 40% of the private school output will be disappointed.
I said at the time he wouldn't be able to hold any public events at GE2024.
Seems I am correct so far.
Rishi Sunak has long gone on about to his love of the exercise brand Peloton, appealing to the healthier, fitter spectrum of the population. In keeping with his fitness-freak image, he revealed to the Daily Mail that he starts of with a 6am Peloton session to Britney Spears songs. What Rishi doesn’t realise however, is that Peloton recently changed its privacy policy to allow registered users to search for any other user by name. A co-conspirator happened to come across Sunak’s profile…
In reality, Rishi Sunak hardly uses the treadmill or the bike – just 34 times since he joined. And none of those workouts have been before 8am, preferring instead to exercise just before a leisurely 9am. He hasn’t been quite so successful in the “achievements” section either. The only Peloton workout he’s done since calling the election? A 5km scenic run along the Californian coast at Big Sur, naturally. Getting homesick…?
https://order-order.com/2024/05/28/revealed-rishi-ran-peloton-5k-in-california-after-calling-election/
#nottobetrusted
When you find the list of degrees then we can talk. Until then, enough.
At her first event of the election campaign at the Rolls-Royce plant in Derby on Tuesday, she was asked whether Labour would need to put up any taxes to ease pressure on public services.
She said: “There are no additional tax rises needed beyond the ones that I’ve said.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/28/general-election-rachel-reeves-rules-out-further-tax-rises/
Haven't the IFS said there needs to be big cuts in the next 5 years if no additional taxes? And that factors in the massive fiscal drag already programmed in.
Keir Starmer doesn't care about Black and Muslim people.
He has one rule for white MPs like Steve Reed, Barry Sheerman and Neil Coyle and another for Black and Brown MPs - especially women as we see with treatment of
@HackneyAbbott
It's racist.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-england-plan-5/?__cf_chl_tk=2kYiGfNFHKftGfedLE7xOLkOyPxGFWPP0.4CG8_WJrQ-1716931744-0.0.1.1-1727
If 95% of students doing 13th century Mongolian pottery don’t repay their loans, perhaps it is worth reducing the subsidy given to universities to teach this course.
Instead both Rishi and Sir Keir seem to be following the Theresa May school of election campaigning
This is the thin edge of the wedge and a case of, toss a £44b pa business, which has a substantial balance of trade benefit, in the bin marked "exclusively for the elite 5%".
The opposition Labour Party is being excessively cautious because they know they're going to be in power shortly and the electorate will hold them to account if they fuck up.
The governing Conservative Party is being utterly reckless, throwing out bizarre, uncosted policies with gay abandon because they know they can't be held accountable if they fuck up because they won't be in power so won't have to implement their stream of consciousness stuff.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden will be formally nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee through a virtual roll call ahead of the party’s official convention in Chicago in August — a maneuver that will allow Biden to appear on the November ballot in Ohio.
The Democratic National Convention, where the president would otherwise be formally nominated, comes after Ohio’s ballot deadline of Aug. 7. The party’s convention is scheduled for Aug. 19-22.
Ohio lawmakers have moved the deadline in the past for candidates of both parties, although they had not done so yet for Biden this year and were called to a rare special session by Gov. Mike DeWine to address the issue.
The virtual proceedings will allow Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to get the party’s formal nod and will be very similar to the process used in 2020, when the convention went virtual because of the COVID-19 pandemic. . . .
The DNC on Tuesday did not say when the virtual roll call will take place, but it is expected in the weeks after the committee’s rules and bylaws committee votes to propose changes to the roll call process. That committee vote is scheduled for June 4. . . .
SSI - Practical effect is to make Ohio special legislative session moot, thus removing (some of) the Republican majority's leverage to hobble the Buckeye State's process for qualifying voter initiatives and referendums for future ballots. This after voters enacted - despite GOP opposition - measures at 2023 general election to safeguard abortion access and legalize marijuana.
Not recommended.
No thanks.
The days of the parties not using every rule and procedure to frustrate the other are long past - just wait to see all the challenges after the November elections (and the challenges and violence if Trump loses).
All the decisions on these matters are taken by white men. Not a good look
Especially if the apprenticeship programme is ramped up quickly without serious employer involvement.
Think of it like venture capital. It might be brilliant if you can predict investments are going to repay massively in advance, so you only put money into those. But you can't; so you distribute the money more widely because the wins outweigh the losses.
(That's the origin of those high interest rates, actually. The idea is that those who make lots after their degree offset those who don't. If you actually pay off your student loan before it's written off, you've paid more than the cost of your degree.)
That's before we even get onto the observation that a lot of graduates who benefit society massively aren't paid a lot for it, and plenty of those who make a packet are relatively useless, merely scraping 0.1 percent of whatever cash flows across their desk.
TLDR: It's pretty silly to talk about the writeoffs as taxpayers' money that's been lost, the plan was that financially sucessful students would cover that. And beyond that, government doesn't put much money into undergraduate teaching (about £10k for clinical students, £1500 for lab subjects, next to nothing for anything else).
Remarkably some Tories still think he did a good at education.
Your regular reminder Cameron won teachers in 2010 before the twat who wrote opinion columns decided that was a transferrable skill to writing a curriculum.
"No"
"What?"
"I don't do charity before men to be seen by them, or blow my own trumpet"
I think it was mainly to keep people out of the unemployment figures, but in fairness it did get my foot in the door. I had very little to do though.
Or drama students. 99% of them will never be successful actors. But how much benefit do we get from having a successful film industry in the UK, even if 99% of drama students are individually never successful? How many cameramen, editors etc are employed as a result.
Plus ca change, eh.
Abbott has been sidelined, like Corbyn, because they are entitled liabilities and not because of her colour.
It's actually quite an elegant system. The only question is whether the current government is too dim to understand it, or so malign that they are happy to misrepresent what's going on.
Or both, I suppose.
Everyone.
https://youtu.be/74BzSTQCl_c?si=LBim_-MM_ojXGO8P
Interviewer - "What's your greatest weakness?"
Candidate - "Honesty."
Interviewer - "Oh, I don't think that's a weakness!"
Candidate - "I don't give a toss what you think."