Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[sun_tzu]

Someone has to pay for it. If its not the students themselves then its the government/taxpayer. I think you'll find people would be far more supportive of scrapping tuition fees for in demand qualifications like engineering or medicine, as that does benefit everyone. I personally hope the system moves that way. The reluctance to scrap the fees stems from not wanting to fund an increasing number of people delaying work by 3 years to study art history or sociology. Nothing to do with 'pulling the ladder up'. Education is not free.

Yes this crazy target from the past of 50% of people in higher education seems to ignore the fact that 50% of jobs don't actually require Degrees!
I am actually hiring for a young engineer at the moment - personally I hope before they do anything with the fee structure they try and get people more time placed in businesses as part of the course as some of the people I have seen have shocking interpersonal skills and almost seem to feel entitled to the job because they have an engineering degree (they will have five plus years industry training after they join before they become really useful to me)

 

[sun_tzu]

That is like something out of "the thick of it" it's a fecking car crash.
.

You can certainly imagine a labour spin doctor going a bit "malcolm tucker" at the tv

 

[Penna]

Except the older generation of people who got their education for free and couldn't give a shit whether us young things have to pay it. The extent to which some older folks want to pull up the ladder and stop younger people succeeding is shocking, and is probably why a lot of them tend to vote Tory.

The main difference is that for people who are pensioners now, university was just not an aspiration when they were young. There was a completely different mindset about getting a degree and most people didn't even think about it. My father left school at 13, my mother was 14. My dad eventually had a very good job as a regional finance manager with BP. Of course, the job situation was different and people's mindsets were different, too.

Here's some interesting stats:

In 1953-54 10.7% of the relevant age group passed five or more GCE O levels at schools in England and Wales. 5.5% of the relevant age group passed one or more GCE A level.

In 1950 17,300 students were awarded first degrees and 2,400 were awarded higher degrees at UK universities.

In 1950 30% of 15 year olds, 14% of 16 year olds and 7% of 17 year olds were in full-time education in England and Wales.

Whereas now:

In 2010/11 there were 4.9 million learners who started a publicly funded further education course in the UK.

In 2010/11 79.6% of pupils in their last year of compulsory education in the UK achieved 5 or more GCSE grades A*-C or equivalent. In 2003/04 39.2% of the relevant age group passed two or more A levels or equivalent.

In 2010/11 331,000 full-time students were awarded first degrees at UK universities and 182,600 (all modes) were awarded higher degrees.

At the end of 2010 88% of 16 year olds and 76% of 17 year olds in England were in full-time education.

(stats from a House of Commons library statistical analysis).

 

[bishblaize]

Someone has to pay for it. If its not the students themselves then its the government/taxpayer.

I'm a bit mixed on the subject generally, but I think this is a key point that people tend to overlook. They see it as a choice between free eduction and paid for education, when in fact free education is not on the table. Its about who pays.

While it might sound fairer for us all to pay - a well educated country benefits us all after all - it also allows the perverse situation where poorer families pay tax to allow richer families to send their children to University for free. Granted poorer people pay less tax anyway, but they also feel the impact of paying that tax more.

Of course that argument extends to every public service - such as the NHS. But with the NHS there's no skew regarding who benefits directly from the NHS, while with education there's a definite issue with ppl from poorer backgrounds failing to directly benefit from access to Uni.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I'm a bit mixed on the subject generally, but I think this is a key point that people tend to overlook. They see it as a choice between free eduction and paid for education, when in fact free education is not on the table. Its about who pays.

While it might sound fairer for us all to pay - a well educated country benefits us all after all - it also allows the perverse situation where poorer families pay tax to allow richer families to send their children to University for free. Granted poorer people pay less tax anyway, but they also feel the impact of paying that tax more.

Of course that argument extends to every public service - such as the NHS. But with the NHS there's no skew regarding who benefits directly from the NHS, while with education there's a definite issue with ppl from poorer backgrounds failing to directly benefit from access to Uni.

Isn't that where student grants come in? Scrap fees and provided means-tested grants to allow people attend university that otherwise wouldn't be able to attend?

Of course, the elephant in the room here is the possibility the value of a third level education is on the decline. With this in mind, you could argue that the kind of investment need to give free third level education to all might be better spent elsewhere.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

The main difference is that for people who are pensioners now, university was just not an aspiration when they were young. There was a completely different mindset about getting a degree and most people didn't even think about it. My father left school at 13, my mother was 14. My dad eventually had a very good job as a regional finance manager with BP. Of course, the job situation was different and people's mindsets were different, too.

Here's some interesting stats:



Whereas now:



(stats from a House of Commons library statistical analysis).

To add to this, qualifications are a minimum requirement for the vast majority of roles, and its only getting harder for people with no certifiable training to get jobs. Qualification inflation will mean needing even higher certs in the future - I do take the point that that isnt necessarily a good thing as it's devalueing the importance of experience. The reality is that the likes of Apple hiring people without a degree is rare.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Interesting figures @Penna , thanks.

Another issue I've seen is that there are plenty of jobs (not even particularly high-paying ones) that seem to require incredibly specific qualifications which aren't relevant to any other career. I could spend a year and X amount of money at night-school getting a qualification (on top of the BA and MA I already have), I still would have no guarantee of getting the job and it'd stand me in no better stead of applying for jobs in a similar field.

 

[Penna]

Interesting figures @Penna , thanks.

Another issue I've seen is that there are plenty of jobs (not even particularly high-paying ones) that seem to require incredibly specific qualifications which aren't relevant to any other career. I could spend a year and X amount of money at night-school getting a qualification (on top of the BA and MA I already have), I still would have no guarantee of getting the job and it'd stand me in no better stead of applying for jobs in a similar field.

Yes, you're right. I think that having a degree now just isn't the same as it used to be! I went into nurse training in 1979 as a 21-year-old political theory graduate. No-one else had a degree, not even the tutors or Director of the school. They had a lengthy discussion with me at interview about my "over-qualification" for nursing, and whether I'd be "too academic". It was decided that I'd be "given a try" (the exact words). Ironically, I stayed the course whereas some of the girls who'd always dreamt of being nurses dropped out.

Nowadays, all nurse training courses are based in Universities and are at graduate-level. However, this hasn't necessarily resulted in better bedside nurses, in my opinion.

 

[Bury Red]

The reality is that the likes of Apple hiring people without a degree is rare.

Ironic for a company founded by a pair of college dropouts.

I'm with Pogue on the means tested grant being the best of the poor options available to fund higher education but the simple fact is that life spans have increased, working lives have lengthened in line with that and it's understandable that people might want to defer starting work by a few years when you know you are likely to need to carry on until your 70s. The government approach is what worries me, successive governments chose the route of pushing higher and higher numbers of kids into further education to keep them off the jobless statistics until the next government were elected with the subsequent grade deflation necessary to achieve their goal making a mockery of the long standing qualification hierarchy meaning that a degree is unlikely to qualify you for the starting position you would have got 15 or 20 years ago and that many companies can insist on degrees for jobs that really don't need them.

To be honest, if you're not looking for a career in Engineering, Medicine or Law or heading for the world of academic research then you really shouldn't be wasting time in University unless you are heading back as a mature student with career experience looking for advanced qualifications.

 

[sun_tzu]

Yes, you're right. I think that having a degree now just isn't the same as it used to be! I went into nurse training in 1979 as a 21-year-old political theory graduate. No-one else had a degree, not even the tutors or Director of the school. They had a lengthy discussion with me at interview about my "over-qualification" for nursing, and whether I'd be "too academic". It was decided that I'd be "given a try" (the exact words). Ironically, I stayed the course whereas some of the girls who'd always dreamt of being nurses dropped out.

Nowadays, all nurse training courses are based in Universities and are at graduate-level. However, this hasn't necessarily resulted in better bedside nurses, in my opinion.

indeed - in the construction industry (and event management - my work strangely involves me doing a lot in both sectors) we have seen the rise of the graduate project managers - useless until they have actually spent some time on site and learned how to deal with people but expect to be paid more because they are a graduate?

I am a big believer that courses that are not traditional academic subjects need to be taught in conjunction with businesses (or industries such as nursing) - give people the basics basics then get them into industry for a year to actually get some practical application then finish off the academic side with a better focus on how to apply it - I know some courses do this but certainly civil engineering & project management could do with a lot more of it - It would also give people the opportunity to earn for a year in their course thus reducing the financial strain overall - obviousley it wouldn't work in all circumstances but it could and imo should be used more.

I actually think the OU is great as well and will always pay towards employees studies if they want to go that route

generally I wont employ somebody straight from uni as I find (from experience) that they are too much of a drain until they have worked somewhere for a year or two before and at least have a proven work ethic and some practical field based real world experience of dealing with problems

 

[Smores]

Isn't that where student grants come in? Scrap fees and provided means-tested grants to allow people attend university that otherwise wouldn't be able to attend?

Of course, the elephant in the room here is the possibility the value of a third level education is on the decline. With this in mind, you could argue that the kind of investment need to give free third level education to all might be better spent elsewhere.

I can never understand the argument around scrapping tuition fees. The argument comes around to those of a poorer background not willing to put a debt around their necks but the current system doesn't inflict a debt burden, it's an additional tax.

Increasing the tuition fees further in order to support higher student grants and wider thresholds by which one qualifies is much fairer. The biggest discrepancy at university is those who need to work to support themselves.

 

[ThierryHenry]

How are so many Brits so in favour of a big nuclear-powered military? I'll never understand it, or people who love the Queen. Bloody patriots.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

The means-tested grants that currently exist probably sounds great to the middle-class folks who dominate parliament, but to a working class family it only covers part of the problem. Regardless of whether you get a full-grant, whilst your studying, that's 3+ years in which you can't work and earn. A lot of families can't afford that.

 

[sun_tzu]

The means-tested grants that currently exist probably sounds great to the middle-class folks who dominate parliament, but to a working class family it only covers part of the problem. Regardless of whether you get a full-grant, whilst your studying, that's 3+ years in which you can't work and earn. A lot of families can't afford that.

I worked full time through my first degree (physics) and my second degree (Business) and my MBA - what's stopping people working now?
There is always the OU route as well if people want to structure study around their job / live rather than structuring life / job around your study. I have funded / part funded a number of employees with OU courses (basic languages all the way to MBA's - more people should consider this as speaking as an employer its a great way of working with employees who want to up-skill themselves and define a career path)

 

[bishblaize]

The means-tested grants that currently exist probably sounds great to the middle-class folks who dominate parliament,

Can we drop the class war stuff please.

but to a working class family it only covers part of the problem. Regardless of whether you get a full-grant, whilst your studying, that's 3+ years in which you can't work and earn. A lot of families can't afford that.

Thats a different argument. Tuition fees are to pay the University for your education, but you still need money to pay rent/food/etc. Are you saying that in addition to paying the Uni for your tuition, the government should ensure you're not out of pocket for switching from work to education for three years?

 

[Penna]

I worked full time through my first degree (physics) and my second degree (Business) and my MBA - what's stopping people working now?
There is always the OU route as well if people want to structure study around their job / live rather than structuring life / job around your study. I have funded / part funded a number of employees with OU courses (basic languages all the way to MBA's - more people should consider this as speaking as an employer its a great way of working with employees who want to up-skill themselves and define a career path)

The OU is brilliant, but it takes a lot of commitment and is probably better-suited for more mature people. Dare I say this, but I think that many young people now don't necessarily see going to uni as being primarily all about getting a degree to help you get on in life. It seems to be more about living away from home for the first time, the social life etc etc. In the past, of course people enjoyed those new experiences too - but perhaps not so much as they seem to nowadays!

 

[sun_tzu]

The OU is brilliant, but it takes a lot of commitment and is probably better-suited for more mature people. Dare I say this, but I think that many young people now don't necessarily see going to uni as being primarily all about getting a degree to help you get on in life. It seems to be more about living away from home for the first time, the social life etc etc. In the past, of course people enjoyed those new experiences too - but perhaps not so much as they seem to nowadays!

yes that does seem very much to be the case - which is of course one of the reasons many people think its right that if students want that experience they should pay for it - and of course if you pick a course thats going to be useful to you after then you will stand a good chance of being financially rewarded for that over the duration of your career.

 

[Smores]

The means-tested grants that currently exist probably sounds great to the middle-class folks who dominate parliament, but to a working class family it only covers part of the problem. Regardless of whether you get a full-grant, whilst your studying, that's 3+ years in which you can't work and earn. A lot of families can't afford that.

There's other financial support available for the minority of students who may have dependents, I assume that's what you're talking about?

This simply isn't the case for the majority of working class students and I speak as one who got the full grant and benefited from it greatly. Sure I lost out on 5 years of income from employment but it's an investment that paid off.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Ironic for a company founded by a pair of college dropouts.

Think I said that in a confusing way. They DO hire people without degrees. The vast majority of companies don't hire without verifiable qualifications.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

There's other financial support available for the minority of students who may have dependents, I assume that's what you're talking about?

This simply isn't the case for the majority of working class students and I speak as one who got the full grant and benefited from it greatly. Sure I lost out on 5 years of income from employment but it's an investment that paid off.

Sadly, in the current situation, having a degree (or two) isn't guaranteed to pay off. Plenty of folks come out of university with good degrees and find themselves working long-term in bars and cafes afterward. Obviously these are perfectly valid jobs, but a degree is a waste of time and money for the graduate in that position. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that respect unfortunately. A lot of job prospects for graduates would be far better if they could up-sticks and move to London or Manchester or wherever to take an internship or apply for jobs in person. Unfortunately many can't afford to, or there are other reasons which means they can't leave (mental health, de facto dependency, etc.)

All this adds up to make the current system pretty unappealing to a lot of folks.

Can we drop the class war stuff please.

Thats a different argument. Tuition fees are to pay the University for your education, but you still need money to pay rent/food/etc. Are you saying that in addition to paying the Uni for your tuition, the government should ensure you're not out of pocket for switching from work to education for three years?

It's not class war to look at the make-up of parliament and see that it's dominated by upper-middle class folks. And its not class-war to suggest that upper- middle class folks don't have as intimate an understanding of the struggles of growing up poor as poor people do.

On the second point, I'm not sure what the solution is, I'm just going through factors that put poorer folks off going to university. For what its worth, I think the whole further education system needs reforming. I'd love to have a conversation (in a different thread) about how that could work.

@sun_tzu - That's an amazing achievement, especially for a science degree when (if it's similar to how it was when I was at uni), you'd have had 20-40 hours of contact time to begin with + coursework. But we should be aiming to move forward and make peoples' lives better. We shouldn't be expecting people to work 10-12 hours a day 7 days a week in order to receive a qualification just because some people in the past had to. So much positive change is held back by the logic of 'well I struggled so why shouldn't they'. In any case, at my university we weren't allowed to work more than 16 hours, I think that's pretty standard practice. Some universities block you from working at all.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Neither would most of the top business people, sports stars, music stars, me, you, TV stars, top lawyers...the list is long!

It's hilarious and sums up the nutcase and his loony policies.

I think it's just really naive. I doubt he has any concrete plans of actually trying to implement it because it would be impossible in every sense of the word.

 

[Shamwow]

I think it's just really naive. I doubt he has any concrete plans of actually trying to implement it because it would be impossible in every sense of the word.

He doesn't have any concrete plans - and most definitely not with a specific cap in mind, which is why all the people laughing at him for it went quiet when asked for a citation.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

He doesn't have any concrete plans - and most definitely not with a specific cap in mind, which is why all the people laughing at him for it went quiet when asked for a citation.

Yeah, sounded too ridiculous to be true. Probably something the Telegraph invented.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Corbyn look to address the issue of wealth inequality, but even he wouldn't go about it like that.

The guy who posted the picture with the statistics had this to say: "No, those are policies Corbyn has supported (except maximum income, which some of his supporters have supported)."

So it's something that Corbyn hasn't even mentioned but that some people who support Corbyn (ultra left wingers) want to see implemented.

 

[Smores]

Sadly, in the current situation, having a degree (or two) isn't guaranteed to pay off. Plenty of folks come out of university with good degrees and find themselves working long-term in bars and cafes afterward. Obviously these are perfectly valid jobs, but a degree is a waste of time and money for the graduate in that position. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy in that respect unfortunately. A lot of job prospects for graduates would be far better if they could up-sticks and move to London or Manchester or wherever to take an internship or apply for jobs in person. Unfortunately many can't afford to, or there are other reasons which means they can't leave (mental health, de facto dependency, etc.)

All this adds up to make the current system pretty unappealing to a lot of folks.

They are perfectly valid issues but that's the reason why the repaymebt of student loans is means tested and progressive.

University isn't there to guarantee a graduate career and nor should it. Its there to give them an opportunity to expand their skills so they can compete in the job market like anyone else. If the goverment has ensured equal access to that then they've done their job, it's the individuals decision to take the risk or not

 

[jeff_goldblum]

They are perfectly valid issues but that's the reason why the repaymebt of student loans is means tested and progressive.

University isn't there to guarantee a graduate career and nor should it. Its there to give them an opportunity to expand their skills so they can compete in the job market like anyone else. If the goverment has ensured equal access to that then they've done their job, it's the individuals decision to take the risk or not

Yeah I agree with most of that, but on the bolded - I don't think they have done their job because the level of risk is still greater for poorer folks than it is for richer ones. I agree with mean-testing, I just don't think the outcome is as equal as governments seem to think it is.

 

[sun_tzu]

@sun_tzu - TWe shouldn't be expecting people to work 10-12 hours a day 7 days a week in order to receive a qualification just because some people in the past had to. So much positive change is held back by the logic of 'well I struggled so why shouldn't they'. In any case, at my university we weren't allowed to work more than 16 hours, I think that's pretty standard practice. Some universities block you from working at all.

I'm pretty sure they cant legally block (or restrict) your hours worked - there cant be any basis for this that would stand up in court.

As for changing attitudes - its not a bad thing - nor is re-examining how things are funded and I personally think tertiary education is not the place of the state to fund and the more that individuals have to question which course they are going to pick on what the workplace needs and will reward then I for one think thats a good thing.

I think the OU is a route more young students should consider as having a degree and 4 years work experience at 22 would put many in a better position than simply having a degree. It would probably leave a lot of people in a better position financially as well

 

[Bury Red]

University isn't there to guarantee a graduate career and nor should it. Its there to give them an opportunity to expand their skills so they can compete in the job market like anyone else. If the goverment has ensured equal access to that then they've done their job, it's the individuals decision to take the risk or not

I'd far rather successive governments under Thatcher, Major and Blair had concentrated on ensuring there were jobs there full stop and left education alone rather than trying to shoe horn kids who would previously have never considered education post 18 into pointless degrees with no solid job prospects at the end of it and no skills relevant to the job market.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

I'm pretty sure they cant legally block (or restrict) your hours worked - there cant be any basis for this that would stand up in court.

As for changing attitudes - its not a bad thing - nor is re-examining how things are funded and I personally think tertiary education is not the place of the state to fund and the more that individuals have to question which course they are going to pick on what the workplace needs and will reward then I for one think thats a good thing.

I think the OU is a route more young students should consider as having a degree and 4 years work experience at 22 would put many in a better position than simply having a degree. It would probably leave a lot of people in a better position financially as well

I don't know the ins-and-outs of it, but they can and do set limits. My brother went to Cambridge and wasn't allowed to take on any work. Both myself at Sheffield and my current housemate at Durham weren't allowed to work more than 16 hours. Without going into the issue of whether its a good or a bad thing, it definitely happens.

Looking back I'd definitely have looked at the OU if I'd known more about it, but even 6 years ago when I was applying we were told by our advisors that getting a good job meant going to a good university. Schools did, and I assume still have, an ulterior motive in getting people into prestigious institutions and so those who were capable were pushed down that route. Having been told that going to the best possible uni was how you got on in life, when I didn't get into Oxford I went for Sheffield because at the time it was #3 in the country for Politics, rather than Newcastle which was closer to home and where I certainly would have been happier, or looking into alternatives such as the OU.

 

[NinjaFletch]

I don't know the ins-and-outs of it, but they can and do set limits. My brother went to Cambridge and wasn't allowed to take on any work. Both myself at Sheffield and my current housemate at Durham weren't allowed to work more than 16 hours. Without going into the issue of whether its a good or a bad thing, it definitely happens.

Looking back I'd definitely have looked at the OU if I'd known more about it, but even 6 years ago when I was applying we were told by our advisors that getting a good job meant going to a good university. Schools did, and I assume still have, an ulterior motive in getting people into prestigious institutions and so those who were capable were pushed down that route. Having been told that going to the best possible uni was how you got on in life, when I didn't get into Oxford I went for Sheffield because at the time it was #3 in the country for Politics, rather than Newcastle which was closer to home and where I certainly would have been happier, or looking into alternatives such as the OU.

I suspect the only reason Cambridge gets away with it is because they haven't been challenged on it. They also force you to live in a college as well, which seems borderline illegal too.

 

[11101]

I'd rather be in a society where people know art history than one where people don't.

So would I.

But not when each degree costs upwards of £100k. Average cost per student at Cambridge is over £150k, at Manchester nearly £70k. There has to be a return if the government (i.e. the taxpayer) is going to foot that bill, and for most degrees there won't be.

 

[sun_tzu]

]

Is that an answer to my question?

yes - if you want to talk about official specific policies then hardly anything on that list counts
If you want to talk about things he has mentioned in his leadership campaign (and you could throw single sex train carriages in there) then yes he has mentioned it
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/13611699.Corbyn__Britain_needs_a_national_maximum_wage/
http://www.cityam.com/222707/corbyn-s-latest-wheeze-national-maximum-wage
numerous articles citing it around 18-20 August 2015 - so its hardly outrageous to include it
Only a coupld of weeks ago even his own MP's were discussiing the policy (or rather how ill conceived it was) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34397255
So in the interest as being as pedantic as your good self:

What exactly is Corbyns policy on raising the national wage to £9 in london - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

Similarly please do show me the specific proposals on rent control - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

How abour renationalising the railways again do you have specifics (a timetable or fully costed re-integration plan perhaps?) - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

Has he specifically said how much and when he is going to increase corporation tax? - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

How about returning academies to local control - what is the specific plan there - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

How abour scrapping tuition fees - has he given any details - has he given us a costing and explained how we will fund it - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

When is he going to abolish the benefits cap - day one, is it phased? - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

exactly how many more syrian refugees does he want to accept? - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

Trident - is he still going to scrap that? - if so how, when etc - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

Has he specifically ruled out air strikes on syria at all? if so is that indefinate or is there a mechanism to review it? - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

How exactly will Ireland unify? - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

and how / when specifically do we leave Nato - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

you see he has said all these things - some of which you may agree with some you may not - my point is that they have made F all meaningful specific policy statements so it cuts both ways - and as he did make a maximum wage comment in the leadership election then thats as fair a question as renationalising the railways

 

[Shamwow]

]

yes - if you want to talk about official specific policies then hardly anything on that list counts
If you want to talk about things he has mentioned in his leadership campaign (and you could throw single sex train carriages in there) then yes he has mentioned it
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/13611699.Corbyn__Britain_needs_a_national_maximum_wage/
http://www.cityam.com/222707/corbyn-s-latest-wheeze-national-maximum-wage
numerous articles citing it around 18-20 August 2015 - so its hardly outrageous to include it
Only a coupld of weeks ago even his own MP's were discussiing the policy (or rather how ill conceived it was) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34397255
So in the interest as being as pedantic as your good self:

What exactly is Corbyns policy on raising the national wage to £9 in london - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

Similarly please do show me the specific proposals on rent control - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

How abour renationalising the railways again do you have specifics (a timetable or fully costed re-integration plan perhaps?) - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

Has he specifically said how much and when he is going to increase corporation tax? - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

How about returning academies to local control - what is the specific plan there - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

How abour scrapping tuition fees - has he given any details - has he given us a costing and explained how we will fund it - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

When is he going to abolish the benefits cap - day one, is it phased? - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

exactly how many more syrian refugees does he want to accept? - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

Trident - is he still going to scrap that? - if so how, when etc - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

Has he specifically ruled out air strikes on syria at all? if so is that indefinate or is there a mechanism to review it? - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

How exactly will Ireland unify? - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

and how / when specifically do we leave Nato - if you dont have specifics is it no longer a policy or aspiration we can associate with Corbyn?

you see he has said all these things - some of which you may agree with some you may not - my point is that they have made F all meaningful specific policy statements so it cuts both ways - and as he did make a maximum wage comment in the leadership election then thats as fair a question as renationalising the railways

I wouldn't mind so much if they put "Jeremy Corbyn has proposed a wage cap".

"Jeremy Corbyn has proposed a wage cap of 1 million" is deliberately misleading and will effect the outcome and credibility of the poll.

Simple right?

 

[Bury Red]

So would I.

But not when each degree costs upwards of £100k. Average cost per student at Cambridge is over £150k, at Manchester nearly £70k.

You also don't need a degree to know and appreciate art history. I studied it as part of my A Levels en route to a possible career in architecture that took a diversion into civil engineering. On it's own as a degree level subject though, it's pretty pointless unless you plan on teaching it or writing art history books. It's one of those subjects that should be pursued as a hobby in the vast majority of cases as it's really not a vocation.

 

[sun_tzu]

I don't know the ins-and-outs of it, but they can and do set limits. My brother went to Cambridge and wasn't allowed to take on any work. Both myself at Sheffield and my current housemate at Durham weren't allowed to work more than 16 hours. Without going into the issue of whether its a good or a bad thing, it definitely happens.

.

Certainly didn't when I was at Durham but that was more than 6 years ago

I had about 25 hours lectures / tutorials and lab time (probably turned up to around 75%) and worked around 30 hours a week as well - its honestly not that much - I certainly do more than 48 hours most weeks and regularly work 60+ as well as being a dad, husband etc so its not beyond most students to have jobs (imo) - certainly as most courses involved less hours than a physics course.

When doing the MBA part time Durham recommend about 16 - 20 hours study a week on top of your normal day job (one of my friends is doing it now - I think he is wishing he went the OU route as there is a lot more flexibility about tutorials etc)

 

[Untied]

I hope this is a regular thing

 

[ThierryHenry]

What does he say? Can't listen at work.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Baroness Kingsmill has got his number :

"A Dad's Army of scruffy old white men living out the revolutionary fantasies of their youth"

Spot on!

 

[Ubik]

Baroness Kingsmill has got his number :

"A Dad's Army of scruffy old white men living out the revolutionary fantasies of their youth"

Spot on!

She'll be toast when the Corbster sees this.

 

[sun_tzu]

Baroness Kingsmill has got his number :

"A Dad's Army of scruffy old white men living out the revolutionary fantasies of their youth"

Spot on!

She has a way with words

 

[Tommy]

Corbyn to become vice-president of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

Sigh.