General Election 2015

[kaosmark2]

I don't think Ed leading the next government is out of the question. I genuinely think David Miliband would have struggled just as much. Also, I'm not sure ties will matter quite as much come 2020 when a lot of people will have forgotten the Blair/Brown years.

[eFestivals]

Its easy for people to talk about how great David Milliband is when he has never had the scrutiny or attacks from the right wing press like his brother had.

but let's be frank. He wouldn't have had those attacks.

He'd be Teflon Tony mk 2, all smiles and lots of bullshit.

My suspicion is that labour need to look to someone witout ties to Blair/Brown to attract more swing voters in the future.

Which is actually Ed, tho it seems hard to believe. Of the realistic candidates, the ones who might get elected to the position of PM, he was the one least tainted by Blair and Brown.

[kaosmark2]

There were only 3 realistic candidates though.

[LondonTom]

So which of the world leaders currently holds this position? How many do you like the look of? Politics with a personality eh?

Eating breakfast properly - with a pint!

Got my vote! I demand a policy of finding a way to be drunk before 12:00 every day without health draw backs. The nation would be much happier if they could remain drunk all day!

The only policy I want to see on uni fees, is that any future changes and every policy since say 1950 are backdated, so those who got their Uni education for free also have to pay their share. Then we might get some positive and sensible thinking on the matter.

[eFestivals]

Got my vote!

If you're lucky enough (?) to live in South Thanet, he can get your vote.

Vote FUKP. Common sense.

[5co77ie]

The nation would be much happier if they could remain drunk all day!

like Greece?

[LJS]

the SNP didn't abstain.

But don't let that stop you creating another false SNP myth, will you?

you are correct, the snp did not abstain

The SNP MPs voted against this measure, because of the damaging impact in Scotland of English Foundation Hospitals. As private money is levered into the English NHS, this will squeeze the public money generated for Scotland through the operation of the Barnett Formula.

so - he created a false myth that the SNP abstained when they in fact voted against it.

[midnight]

I really don't understand the leadership qualities some people see in "Calm-down-dear" David Cameron. But I never liked Blair either, I just never felt that he was sincere when the "acted" sincere. Not that not liking the leader would influence the way I'd cast my vote much, they are there to see their policies through, not to be liked by me.

The possibility of a Con/UKIP alliance is what absolutely terrifies me.

[eFestivals]

you are correct, the snp did not abstain

so - he created a false myth that the SNP abstained when they in fact voted against it.

As you recognise, it's a myth to say they abstained when they didn't.

I made no comment about which way they voted. I only made a factually true comment about them not abstaining, as had been claimed in the post I responded to.

Why is it that SNP supporters get offended about true statements about the SNP?

[eFestivals]

PS: as you chose to mention it LJS, the rationale for why the SNP voted against the NHS reforms is proper fruitcake-land.

If private care within the NHS costs more as the SNP claim, that means the Scottish NHS would benefit with a higher block grant via higher English NHS costs.

If private care within the NHS costs less as the likes of the tories claim, that means the Scottish NHS should be doing the same thing to get better value for money.

Logic and SNP policies are uncomfortable bedfellows.

Edited February 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

Is having an intelligent and well-educated populace a good thing?

I know people argue "what use is a degree in media studies" but STEM subjects as a bare minimum should be free university, and the rest shouldn't just be a luxury thing for the rich, otherwise universities will end up socially elitist again.

Of course it is. But shouldn't the £9k extra that graduates earn on average be taxed further. The general taxation arguement ends with those non-grads paying towards grad's education who with then go on to earn more.

I know there's a bit of a circluar arguement here, as general taxation will gather more tax from grads too.

Those who go to Uni benefit - should there not be some sore of direct tax? I buy a pint of beer, get direct benefit and pay a direct tax. I know drinking a pint is a long way from going to uni (actually, hang on....) but is the principle the same. OK I picked the beer example for a cheap gag, but if I said a gym membership instead, then there is also a benefit to the country too.

I know fees are a touchy subject, but i can't see them going anywhere soon. (Note I'm using fees / tax interchangeably, as I see the current system akin to a grad tax.)

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I was thinking of voting Green until I met my candidate. They really have no clue. I asked about their defence policy and the reply was an incoherent babble, especially when asked about the decommissioning of Trident, never mind the formation of a "defence" Force.

[kaosmark2]

Of course it is. But shouldn't the £9k extra that graduates earn on average be taxed further. The general taxation arguement ends with those non-grads paying towards grad's education who with then go on to earn more.

I know there's a bit of a circluar arguement here, as general taxation will gather more tax from grads too.

Those who go to Uni benefit - should there not be some sore of direct tax? I buy a pint of beer, get direct benefit and pay a direct tax. I know drinking a pint is a long way from going to uni (actually, hang on....) but is the principle the same. OK I picked the beer example for a cheap gag, but if I said a gym membership instead, then there is also a benefit to the country too.

I know fees are a touchy subject, but i can't see them going anywhere soon. (Note I'm using fees / tax interchangeably, as I see the current system akin to a grad tax.)

I agree, but that should be done by a progressive tax system based upon wages, with whether getting to those wages happened via university or not.

Also, a personal example to highlight the difference between the current system vs grad tax:

I've had to drop out of a chemistry degree because appeals to SLC failed. I had poor health and had to retake a year, and now I cannot do any more studying unless I pay the fees myself. I've failed in appeals twice (apparently a letter from my GP, another from the doctor in hospital that I saw, and more from the university saying they accepted my medical evidence wasn't sufficient to prove that ill health was the reason). My remaining options were to permanently drop out, or to spend several months taking the SLC to court in a lengthy and potentially costly process. I haven't the energy for that, fighting the SLC with my weakened immune system was wrecking my health, stress and anxiety levels through the roof, and since I've made the decision to give up, I've been healthier.

However, if it were a grad tax, I'd have been able to finish my degree by now, and be using that degree.

And this is an example of someone who accepts the debt as worth it, who feels its an acceptable cost to gaining a degree. The system is broken, it is repulsive (in the literal sense), and the only people it doesn't fuck are families who can just throw money at any problem. Yes I've had exceptional circumstances, but the SLC themselves, and the system that they perpetuate, should not be such a massive impediment to anyone wanting to study.

[gary1979666]

I agree, but that should be done by a progressive tax system based upon wages, with whether getting to those wages happened via university or not.

Also, a personal example to highlight the difference between the current system vs grad tax:

I've had to drop out of a chemistry degree because appeals to SLC failed. I had poor health and had to retake a year, and now I cannot do any more studying unless I pay the fees myself. I've failed in appeals twice (apparently a letter from my GP, another from the doctor in hospital that I saw, and more from the university saying they accepted my medical evidence wasn't sufficient to prove that ill health was the reason). My remaining options were to permanently drop out, or to spend several months taking the SLC to court in a lengthy and potentially costly process. I haven't the energy for that, fighting the SLC with my weakened immune system was wrecking my health, stress and anxiety levels through the roof, and since I've made the decision to give up, I've been healthier.

However, if it were a grad tax, I'd have been able to finish my degree by now, and be using that degree.

And this is an example of someone who accepts the debt as worth it, who feels its an acceptable cost to gaining a degree. The system is broken, it is repulsive (in the literal sense), and the only people it doesn't fuck are families who can just throw money at any problem. Yes I've had exceptional circumstances, but the SLC themselves, and the system that they perpetuate, should not be such a massive impediment to anyone wanting to study.

What a complete farce! Did they say what would count as sufficient evidence for you to continue? I'm don't know enough about the current rules to comment on how that would effect your situation, but doesn't sound right.

Though a different question, what would happen if someone got part way through a course and thought nah, not for me, or failed. Are they liable for any cost? Current rules - yes. Grad tax - don't know - they're not a grad. But again, contrived example - if I walk out halfway through a film - I'm liable for the full cost. Does it make people more responsible for their choices? (no relation at all to your situation Mark, just trying to contrast the 2 systems).

[kaosmark2]

What a complete farce! Did they say what would count as sufficient evidence for you to continue? I'm don't know enough about the current rules to comment on how that would effect your situation, but doesn't sound right.

Though a different question, what would happen if someone got part way through a course and thought nah, not for me, or failed. Are they liable for any cost? Current rules - yes. Grad tax - don't know - they're not a grad. But again, contrived example - if I walk out halfway through a film - I'm liable for the full cost. Does it make people more responsible for their choices? (no relation at all to your situation Mark, just trying to contrast the 2 systems).

Well that was what I was told was sufficient first time, but then it was rejected, the people who had told me that had left, and I was told further appeals would be automatically rejected because I'd already had 2.

I'm pretty sure I would win if I took it to court, but 3 years of fighting it broke my energy.

The thing is, yes people should consider their choices and be responsible, but we shouldn't have a system that puts people off going to uni, which is what we have.

[gary1979666]

The thing is, yes people should consider their choices and be responsible, but we shouldn't have a system that puts people off going to uni, which is what we have.

I think the way it's been reported has certainly put people off. I rarely heard an accurate portrayal of it when it came out. It was always big headlines about HUGE DEBT etc, which naturally put people off. If the repayment were properly explained then I think it wouldn't have had such the impact. I remember the god awful show with Jimmy Carr, Mitchell, Laverne and Brooker (big fans of all, but just terrible show) and they had David Willetts on, he explained it really well and then he was just railroaded by Mitchell.

I think a lot of the attitude of "they got it for free, so I want it for free" is just as unhealthy as that of the older generations. Times are tight and things can't stay the same forever. It's pretty difficult to go back and undo time and reset fairness. I take yours and Neil's point about general taxation - but that's rarely the arguement I hear against why the fees shouldn;t rise.

[kaosmark2]

I think the way it's been reported has certainly put people off. I rarely heard an accurate portrayal of it when it came out. It was always big headlines about HUGE DEBT etc, which naturally put people off. If the repayment were properly explained then I think it wouldn't have had such the impact. I remember the god awful show with Jimmy Carr, Mitchell, Laverne and Brooker (big fans of all, but just terrible show) and they had David Willetts on, he explained it really well and then he was just railroaded by Mitchell.

I think a lot of the attitude of "they got it for free, so I want it for free" is just as unhealthy as that of the older generations. Times are tight and things can't stay the same forever. It's pretty difficult to go back and undo time and reset fairness. I take yours and Neil's point about general taxation - but that's rarely the arguement I hear against why the fees shouldn;t rise.

Every MP that voted for the fees and the fee rises got a free university education. They're on an excellent salary. Did they offer to pay the equivalent of what they would now back into the public coffers? No, they claimed a fuckton of expenses on travelling and hotels and 2nd houses to vote on it.

I'm not 100% against tuition fees, however the system used is a greater drain on the public coffers than before (because of the repayment), provides less money to universities (because the direct funding got cut), and is socially prohibitive and offputting.

And just because some people use retarded arguments against/for doesn't actually mean that their conclusion is wrong (even if their methodology is terrible and they only got there by accident). Tuition fees are an inferior system to a well-developed, progressive tax system that actually taxes the wealthy.

[eFestivals]

The thing is, yes people should consider their choices and be responsible, but we shouldn't have a system that puts people off going to uni, which is what we have.

I hate to say it, but....

A greater proportion of the financially disadvantaged are going to Uni with £9k fees than used to go when fees were £3k.

The tories are claiming this fact as proof of the success of higher fees, tho that's stretching things a bit. There's all sorts of different possible reasons for why there's been that increase, and it might be something as simple as a generational thing that's grown up since doing uni has become much more the norm.

[kaosmark2]

I hate to say it, but....

A greater proportion of the financially disadvantaged are going to Uni with £9k fees than used to go when fees were £3k.

The tories are claiming this fact as proof of the success of higher fees, tho that's stretching things a bit. There's all sorts of different possible reasons for why there's been that increase, and it might be something as simple as a generational thing that's grown up since doing uni has become much more the norm.

I think that's a temporary result of the increased tendency for people to go to uni. I strongly suspect in 5-10 years, assuming no reversal, we'll start to see a decline, as those who are struggling to pay off £3k fees, discourage their children from going.

[eFestivals]

I think that's a temporary result of the increased tendency for people to go to uni. I strongly suspect in 5-10 years, assuming no reversal, we'll start to see a decline, as those who are struggling to pay off £3k fees, discourage their children from going.

I reckon we'll see a reversal, but for different reasons.

Going to uni is no longer a the big financial advantage thru life that it once was, and for many people they'll have a higher in-their-pocket lifetime-income by going a different route.

For example, apprenticeships are again a thing, and while there's plenty of mickey mouse ones, something like (say) a proper old-style engineering apprenticeship could easily see that worker better off, and financially independent at a much younger age.

I did the maths around this sort of thing about 18 months ago for the benefit of my son, just to lay out the different possibilities to him, and there's few professions left where a degree is any sort of guarantee of a financially better life - even plenty of those with law degrees will never see a particularly good income, for example.

Edited February 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

I reckon we'll see a reversal, but for different reasons.

Going to uni is no longer a the big financial advantage thru life that it once was, and for many people they'll have a higher in-their-pocket lifetime-income by going a different route.

For example, apprenticeships are again a thing, and while there's plenty of mickey mouse ones, something like (say) a proper old-style engineering apprenticeship could easily see that worker better off, and financially independent at a much younger age.

I did the maths around this sort of thing about 18 months ago for the benefit of my son, just to lay out the different possibilities to him, and there's few professions left where a degree is any sort of guarantee of a financially better life - even plenty of those with law degrees will never see a particularly good income, for example.

I think there's a number of reasons. The ones you've laid out will definitely contribute as well.

[gary1979666]

I think that's a temporary result of the increased tendency for people to go to uni. I strongly suspect in 5-10 years, assuming no reversal, we'll start to see a decline, as those who are struggling to pay off £3k fees, discourage their children from going.

But the maths should suggest otherwise. I know these are averages, but if you're earning £9k more for going to Uni, then that must outweigh the 9%>21k that you're repaying now. I'd rather be on £31k with an extra deduction on my payslip of £900 than earning £21k.

Also the repayment amount on the £9k loans is less the the £3k loans, as the earnings threshold was lifted.

Yeah it'll take a while to pay off but the length of time doesn't really matter too much when your alternative is a higher base rate which would mean less take home pay anyway. (I know amounts differ). My wife still has her loan, earns an average salary and the £60/month that she pays is just an accepted amount that is deducted. She's 34, but will probably be cleared in a few years.

[gary1979666]

I reckon we'll see a reversal, but for different reasons.

Going to uni is no longer a the big financial advantage thru life that it once was, and for many people they'll have a higher in-their-pocket lifetime-income by going a different route.

For example, apprenticeships are again a thing, and while there's plenty of mickey mouse ones, something like (say) a proper old-style engineering apprenticeship could easily see that worker better off, and financially independent at a much younger age.

I did the maths around this sort of thing about 18 months ago for the benefit of my son, just to lay out the different possibilities to him, and there's few professions left where a degree is any sort of guarantee of a financially better life - even plenty of those with law degrees will never see a particularly good income, for example.

I do agree with this.

I'm in accounts and went the traditional degree, grad scheme route, but am seeing plenty of people coming through on apprenticeships or just studying AAT on weekends to get qualified. They're actually hitting the better roles quicker, because they're starting earlier, not having spent 3 years at Uni. Plus have no debt and have been earning over that time too.

I think everyone should have the opportunity to study at uni, but it isn't the be all and end all.

[gary1979666]

Every MP that voted for the fees and the fee rises got a free university education. They're on an excellent salary. Did they offer to pay the equivalent of what they would now back into the public coffers? No, they claimed a fuckton of expenses on travelling and hotels and 2nd houses to vote on it.

Are you saying MP's should retrospectively enforce any new policies on themselves. Should they repay any child benefit they've received over the years? Should they repay any extra fuel duty that's been added to flights for all their previous holidays? Similarly, for the increase in VAT rate, should they claim back the extra 2.5% they've paid?

I agree that there was some massive piss taking with expenses, but I agree with the principle of expenses - if they have to get to Westminister, they should get that back, if Danny Alexander has to stay over, rather than fly back to Scotland, then yes, he should have accommodation paid for. The idea of that is in most businesses / public sector depts. Just needs to be policed properly and it wasn't.

Of all the arguments against this - that was a cheap one.

[eFestivals]

Are you saying MP's should retrospectively enforce any new policies on themselves.

it would make a big difference to policies if they did.

Did you know that the only* indoor workplace where smoking is still permitted is in the Houses of Parliament, for example?

(* prisons also used to be included, but I believe that's now ended due to pressure from the union [who amusingly were the ones who got that exemption in the first place, not wanting rioting prisoners to deal with]).

I'm not actually suggesting that because they allow smoking for themselves at work that it should be allowed elsewhere, but it's a good example of how they make laws to apply to others but not themselves.

The things they done quite recently that have hugely angered me is forced below-inflation pay rises on all of the public sector - except MPs.

And they've given themselves a huge pension top up to their already-hugely generous pension scheme, whilst they've forced the rest of the public sector to downgrade their own pension benefits.