General Discussion: Politics thread


Show original post
stelfox
stelfox avatar

8488 posts since 11/3/09

15 Oct 2010 21:36
Surely this is going to have an effect on the research done within institutions and thus the export-able tech? And the prestige of British universities which brings in foreign students paying around 20k a year?
phelen
phelen avatar

6500 posts since 16/8/06

15 Oct 2010 21:59
Foxtrot wrote: Vince cable said the roads to westminster are covered with the skidmarks of different political parties changing direction on this partcular issue. Having reneged on their pledge, a central theme of their campaign, once again the lib dems reveal that they are so invertebrate. The Browne report is being dubbed as progressive but once you take into account the increase in interest repayments, which could go up to 2% plus inflation and the upheaval of the higher educational system its hard to see how it is such a progressive policy.

Student's earning the minimum will have a large chunk of their salaries taken away at source for however many years it takes to re-pay. Remember that's just for fees, you can at least double the size of the repayments if you take into consideration maintenance loans. Better off students will get their parents to pay it off quickly, or not need loans in the first place, and so avoid years of interest payments,

They are thinking penalty payment slapped on richer graduates who pay back their debt earlier - this is ridiculous and sound like an arbitrary tax just for the sake of progressiveness.

Cuts in public funding in university budgets of 80% coupled with no cap? This is a massive change and is an redolent of an American system which is predominantly funded privately. universities that are not prestigious will not be able to survive - the cost of providing the service to students outstrips the amount they charge and they will ave to raise the fees to recoup their costs. I think Russel Group universities will be able to charge what the market will bear which may be £6,000 maybe even more, while lesser universities will not. Having a higher education system where there is a marked different between what groups of universities charge essentially creates a two tier system. And a way for employers to discriminate further down the line. If this is progressive then id hate to see what regressive is.

Just to offer some perspective from the US system, it's kinda expected that you'll have something that puts the national deficit to shame in student loans, so it doesn't necessarily affect your ability to buy a house.Indeed US fees (which are far too high) are however, matched by solid state funding as well. I don't know the ins and outs of this funding, or how the uni is obliged to spend the money derived from fees (do they keep it, for example, or if it's paid straight to them, etc, etc) but I gave a paper at the City University of New York last year and my god, the resources that they have! The library! Even the cafe pisses over anything I've ever seen at any British institution. Bear in mind that CUNY is very much below NYU and the Ivy League Columbia University - their student resources must be amazing.

They also pay their lecturers a minimum of twice anything a UK equivalent would get - but they'd better publish world-class research or they're out on their ear. The UK should not strive to emulate the US system, but it seems like they've cherry-picked the 'high fees' bit of it and sacked off the rest. The UK already competes (just about) with the US on a budget that is laughably miniscule in comparison; take away what we're already getting and the system the students of the future will be paying for will utterly fail to compete on a world stage.
Foxtrot
Foxtrot avatar

2476 posts since 8/4/09

15 Oct 2010 22:32
While i appreciate the severe consequences of the budget deficit on government spending across the board, government priorities are a concern. The cuts to funding currently being contemplated is a dereliction of duty. I agree, the universities budget in the US is massive almost triple (correct me if im wrong) that of the UK including public expenditure and private expenditure. But do you think such a system is sustainable for the UK to adopt?

The Russell Group have been pushing for the cap to be lifted. I think these institutions will continue to have cutting edge research maintained given that they can afford to charge high rents and will compete across the atlantic. Others however may not and novel projects to improve 2nd tier university research will suffer drastically.
MrPlatinum
MrPlatinum avatar

8939 posts since 24/2/04

16 Oct 2010 02:00
DuffMan wrote: MrPlat that's not the point, if you were working class and had parents on low income would you go to university if someone told you that you'd leave with 50k in debt with interest charged at a market rate? If you were on 25k a year you're talking a 10th of your entire yearly income pre-tax. People from poorer backgrounds will be put off regardless of what commentators etc say.

I grew up on a council estate, my dad gave me £20 a week max whilst I was at uni. I had to take out full loans and and now pay over £300 a month in student loan repayments but fuck it, I couldn't have gone to uni without it. So my parents aren't wealthy, I didn't want to use that as an excuse so I took the loans out and now I'm doing alright for myself. Sure there are people whose parents paid it off in one go for them, but you either spend your life as a victim or you get on and make something of yourself.
Paolo G
Paolo G avatar

7408 posts since 10/8/06

16 Oct 2010 02:02
I owe about 15 000 pounds in England and they can suck my balls for it!
phelen
phelen avatar

6500 posts since 16/8/06

18 Oct 2010 16:43
Great read here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/18/savers-bank-lending-taxpayers

The amount that gets skimmed off by the financial industry at all stages for things like pensions or stock/fund purchases is obscene. Even "low cost" vehicles like SIPPs you will end up paying a ridiculous amount over its lifetime just for the management of it. Removal of things like the NSI bonds, where you would be lending to the government, thereby actually funding the deficit at a cheaper rate than we are paying out in bonds is particularly stupid as well.
MrPlatinum
MrPlatinum avatar

8939 posts since 24/2/04

20 Oct 2010 14:07
Anyone following this today? I'm at work so can't see it unfortunately. What are the big outcomes?

I did find this quite funny when I read it: "Tories, putting the 'N' in Cuts".
gawkrodger
gawkrodger avatar

7529 posts since 4/11/08

12 Nov 2010 13:09
Not normally a huge fan of the Granuaid, but this is a good article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/12/spending-cuts-fightback-begins
phelen
phelen avatar

6500 posts since 16/8/06

2 Mar 2011 12:48
The government's health service reforms could lead to GP practices being partially floated on the stock market, it has emerged.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/02/nhs-reform-surgeries-stock-market?CMP=twt_gu

Essentially, any 'underspend' will be syphoned off as profit Roll Eyes . The tories are out to finish the job they started with cuntspray, sorry, Thatcher. They'll fuck up the health service for the working man, ensure Tarquin and all the other toffs gets rich off it, then fuck off to their country mansions and leave the country in ruin for the rest of us.

The NHS should NOT be run as a business. It should be free at the point of service. Andrew Lansley will go down in history as one of the worst health ministers ever if he pushes his agenda of privatisation.

Rant over
JustinCredible
JustinCredible avatar

2618 posts since 11/6/08

5 May 2011 11:05
AV or FPTP?
DuffMan
DuffMan avatar

14381 posts since 21/2/07

5 May 2011 11:34
I'll be voting yes.

A lot of people seem to be saying they want electoral reform but don't think AV is good and so will vote no, this is pretty silly as a large no result will mean voting reform is put on the backshelf, whenever it's brought up people can just say, 'but look the country voted no, where's the mandate?'. So as far as I'm concerned anyone who wants voting reform should be voting yes or preparing not so see another referendum for 30 years.
Double D
Double D avatar

3552 posts since 8/3/07

5 May 2011 11:38
Pretty much the only good reason to vote no that I can think of is if you really fucking love the Tories.
MrPlatinum
MrPlatinum avatar

8939 posts since 24/2/04

5 May 2011 11:41
DuffMan wrote: I'll be voting yes.

A lot of people seem to be saying they want electoral reform but don't think AV is good and so will vote no, this is pretty silly as a large no result will mean voting reform is put on the backshelf, whenever it's brought up people can just say, 'but look the country voted no, where's the mandate?'. So as far as I'm concerned anyone who wants voting reform should be voting yes or preparing not so see another referendum for 30 years.

Agreed 100%. I've voted yes already.
andymakesglasses
andymakesglasses avatar

20407 posts since 26/1/06

5 May 2011 12:04
It seems like it's only really the Lib Dems who want this particular version of AV. Others who are in favour of electoral reform have said that this is a flawed version.

I take your point (no homo) about a resounding "no" vote sounding the death knell for a voting reform referendum any time soon, but what if there's a "yes" vote (unlikely I know) and we get a less than ideal AV system?
Double D
Double D avatar

3552 posts since 8/3/07

5 May 2011 12:07
A less than ideal AV system is better than FPTP, no?

It's pretty obvious that the two parties who are going to lose out in an AV situation are going to be the ones who are pointing out the 'glaring flaws'.
DuffMan
DuffMan avatar

14381 posts since 21/2/07

5 May 2011 12:08
AV is better than fptp (it really is) so I would rather be 'stuck' with av than with fptp but what a yes vote does is show that reform does matter to the country. People bash av as a bad system but there's a reason for it being used in loads of elections (non-parliamentary, e.g. all 3 parties leadership contests regardless of what the tories say), it's bloody fair.
Ketters
Ketters avatar

1055 posts since 8/2/11

5 May 2011 12:08
Double D wrote: Pretty much the only good reason to vote no that I can think of is if you really fucking love the Tories.

And if you want the ability to throw governments out of office come election day. Plus about a million other reasons. I've voted no.
BOOKSTORECORE
BOOKSTORECORE avatar

7634 posts since 8/8/06

5 May 2011 12:11
Completely agree with Duffers, had the same conversation this morning.
MrPlatinum
MrPlatinum avatar

8939 posts since 24/2/04

5 May 2011 12:18
And if you only have a first choice, you only mark one box.

Anyway, it's easy. This morning I just walked in and wrote a 1 next to 'Yes' and a 2 next to 'No'.
Zeke
Zeke avatar

1799 posts since 13/7/06

5 May 2011 13:01
andymakesglasses wrote: It seems like it's only really the Lib Dems who want this particular version of AV. Others who are in favour of electoral reform have said that this is a flawed version.

I take your point (no homo) about a resounding "no" vote sounding the death knell for a voting reform referendum any time soon, but what if there's a "yes" vote (unlikely I know) and we get a less than ideal AV system?
Those that vote Tory won't put Labour as their second vote and vice versa. Those voting for Labour will often put LD as their second choice; those voting Tory will often put LD as their second choice, giving a nice help to the LDs