Which will be great but would have the smallest impact in reducing the debt.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Which will be great but would have the smallest impact in reducing the debt.
Where do you think the money comes from? Do you think we can just print more and spend it willy nilly? Of course out and out austerity is a political choice but it doesn't mean the debt doesnt have to be controlled.
Starmer's supporters know he's abandoned his promised platform but believe lying to the Labour membership is the correct thing to do.
I get it, if I was running for leadership of the Labour Party I'd probably pledge not to ban cars or introduce queer theory to Key Stage 1 or whatever, so as to not frighten the horses.
I get it, if I was running for leadership of the Labour Party I'd probably pledge not to ban cars or introduce queer theory to Key Stage 1 or whatever, so as to not frighten the horses.
In the short term maybe. In the long term it would have a huge (positive) impact on GDP.
Do you have or know anyone that has a mortgage? What is their plan to tackle that vast amount of debt?
Only 28% of students in England want Labour to abolish tuition fees, poll suggests
A new poll shows that just one in four students support Labour’s Corbyn-era policy to abolish university tuition fees in England, as Keir Starmer is widely expected to ditch Labour’s previous commitment.
The survey for the Higher Education Policy Institute found that just 28% of students in England want Labour to abolish tuition fees, while 20% want Labour to keep the current system of fees capped at £9,250 a year. Of the rest, 23% want Labour to cut undergraduate tuition fees to £6,000, and 15% want fees cut to £3,000, with 4% backing a graduate tax instead.
The poll of 1,000 undergraduates conducted by Savanta found that 46% of students said they would vote Labour while just 7% said they backed the Conservatives. Some 10% supported the Greens and 5% the Lib Dems.
Nick Hillman, director of HEPI, said:
Most students also said they supported the staff strikes over pay and pensions that have hit British universities this year, with 67% in support and only 16% opposed to industrial action.
A new poll shows that just one in four students support Labour’s Corbyn-era policy to abolish university tuition fees in England, as Keir Starmer is widely expected to ditch Labour’s previous commitment.
The survey for the Higher Education Policy Institute found that just 28% of students in England want Labour to abolish tuition fees, while 20% want Labour to keep the current system of fees capped at £9,250 a year. Of the rest, 23% want Labour to cut undergraduate tuition fees to £6,000, and 15% want fees cut to £3,000, with 4% backing a graduate tax instead.
The poll of 1,000 undergraduates conducted by Savanta found that 46% of students said they would vote Labour while just 7% said they backed the Conservatives. Some 10% supported the Greens and 5% the Lib Dems.
Nick Hillman, director of HEPI, said:
There was stronger support among students for a maintenance grant aimed at poorer students, and more generous maintenance loans for all students.
Most students also said they supported the staff strikes over pay and pensions that have hit British universities this year, with 67% in support and only 16% opposed to industrial action.
Ok, so what is the level of debt that the U.K can manage without imploding? I assume from your ramblings that we are at the precipice? Alternately, you have no idea and are just crying 'what about the debt?' to justify a Government's political choices.
We can print what we like, yes. We can spend it too. The limiting factors will be the need to control inflation but debt is really not the end of the world. We printed £450 billion during Covid. We also have this ability to get money back through taxes. Given that we have had years of stagnant growth, maybe we should think a little bit more about investing and less about the austerity which has contributed heavily to the mess we are in now.
Only by a very small amount when comparing the national debt. Listen I agree, investment is needed and it will make a difference.
I have a mortgage but the figure of that compared to what would be required for national investment is quite different.
I'm not sure about what figure is imploding but I'm damn sure you can't just print more money, spend it and ignore it. No one is doubting that we need investment and I'm against the choices of this Government over the last 13 years more than most but a clear balance needs to be had.
It obviously is, but would paying university fees for people actually increase the numbers attending university, especially the courses that provide graduates that would significantly increase growth?
Or would the large sums involved be better spent on primary education, secondary education, and apprenticeships? With anything left over going to the desperate need for social and heath care?
In relative terms though, is it? UK Debt to GDP is about 1/1 roughly. Is your mortgage 1/1. I.e when you took out your mortgage, was the amount borrowed the same as your annual income? If not then you are more indebted in relative terms than the UK is. That doesn't even take into account that the UK has far more flex than any individual when it comes to financial arrangements.
My point is that it would require a balance between investment and managing the debt. With priority given to getting investment in the basic areas first eg pay for nurses, NHS etc Something this Government has failed at.
I think that probably depends on how much money families have to "loan" to their kids.
The current system certainly stops poorer students from considering university and although scholarships and grants are available, universities only have a limited amount of money to offer for them. Targeting that area would make the most sense and the rest can then go into the remainder of the education system.
It's certainly true that Starmer has the saving grace of not having lied to as many people as Clegg. They should stick that on a banner to motivate the foot soldiers.
Err that's literally where it comes from. Where do you think it comes from?
I would deal with that by increasing the loans so they are enough to cover living and accommodation expenses. They don't now, which means more expensive private loans have to be taken out by students without parents that can or will help out. Student loans wouldn't need to be repaid at all by those that remain low-paid, and as already said increasing the threshold and lowering the interest rate would help those that might have to pay back. With those changes there would be no barrier whatsoever to those from poorer families attending.
You’ve just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of national finances. Let’s just print more money and everything will be ok. Good god.
From memory of this discussion in the past. It's largely secondary and higher level that have the most return but they all have a positive correlation to growth.
Covering the costs for middle class kids isn't going to boost much compared to the lower class. Question then is whether its cheaper to target it at those most in need with the greatest benefit or if the administrative burden actually means its cheaper just to keep it universal. Often it can be the latter even without considering that the spend doesn't evaporate it's money into the economy later reclaimed by taxation.
Read my sentence again! I was saying do you think we can print money and just spend it? I’m fully aware of where it comes from, the point I was making is that you can’t just print at will and then spend it.
Yeah, with inflation targeting in place after Black Wednesday destroyed the £ it really wouldn't be a good idea for us to print money at will.
That balance is a fallacy. Managing debt doesn't mean reduction. For the individual, yes, managing debt is generally a path to get rid of it as soon as possible. For a large organisation or a nation state, it isn't. It's a necessary and perfectly expectable facility to boost investment.
There is no reason why we as a nation can't pay nurses what they deserve and also invest in other things like education.
The debt/deficit etc. is an excuse to avoid investing in what will make this country and its people more prosperous and re-direct that capital to those who are already wealthy.
Is that not what the government did during the pandemic though? That shows the mechanism is there, just that for some reason we've decided that it's not good to print money to spend on the public
It's difficult to see how this policy would cause any dramatic difference in inflation?
In principle I agree, talk of managing debt is irrelevant when spend has a return but inflation now more than ever is a concern.
Yeah, this policy in isolation probably wouldn't be significant. Bringing a lot more cash via loans / printing money into the economy when severely in debt isn't a good idea though as that would cause inflation. Investment in growth is the policy I would go for as well normally, but now isn't the time until we've got inflation back under control.
It's worth saying that the BoE have an obligation to keep inflation within target with theoretically no political input into that decision. That could be really damaging for a lot of people if inflation stays out of control.
Yes and the debt has sky rocketed and so has inflation. You can keep printing it and the same will continue to happen, things will rocket up in price and rinse and repeat. Eventually your currency becomes worthless and you default. People withdraw from banks, there is a crash. You reduce your credit rating as a country. There's plenty of reasons why there has to be a balance.
If you think education has positive externalities, which is pretty uncontroversial, then removing barriers isn't enough. You need to subsidize.
#
I agree with you on this point in bold. I never said managing debt meant an austerity policy. Clearly this Government hasn't invested properly and we are all paying the price but my main point is that you cannot ignore the national debt but it also shouldnt mean a blanket austerity policy either.
There's not many policies of a size that can move the inflation needle too much, it takes dramatic taxation swings or huge supply and demand shifts.
I think whenever these type of things are discussed they can't be generalised under such concerns and you have to map the money. I mean when you think about what free university tuition would mean we're talking about a gradual shift that would take many years to feel an effect. There's no sudden influx of cash into the economy, it's closer to a future taxation promise.
So Labour/Starmers reasons for it being about the current economic situation are just a plain lie. At most its optics, which is where we're at, a party run on focus group optics rather than what's best for the country.
Enjoy 7 more years of the Tories then
I've no idea what a positive externality is, but free loans for the half of students that never have to pay them back is subsidy. The loans are inadequate and need to be higher, increasing subsidy. They shouldn't have to be paid back unless someone is earning significantly above average wage, increasing subsidy. The interest rates are disgusting, they should be lowered, increasing subsidy.
I don't know what your own take is about what's best for the country but I'd suggest if it's that Keir Starmer become Prime Minister then responding to people like this would be unlikely to be a constructive route.
A positive externality is a benefit to someone outside of the transaction, so in this case the university and the student. Education increases economic growth, which benefits everyone. If positive externalities exist, then the market solution won't maximize economic surplus. You have to pay people, and a loan isn't it.
It's the opposite of a negative externality, which is something that harms people outside of the transaction, e.g. pollution.
Thank you for the definition, maybe I'm the only one that needed it, I don't know.
A loan is payment if it isn't paid back, and remember I am proposing adequate loans that cover the full need. And where it is paid back that is revenue that can be spent on so many other things, earlier education, apprenticeships, social care, disabled care, the NHS. Maybe those things have positive externalities too, I wouldn't claim to have the hang of that one.
But put this against the background of the politics, I don't think enough people would vote for the abolition of student loans in any case, and the economics that go with it, but I think they might vote for an improvement of the system. Hopefully.
Or you can enjoy 4/5 years of a useless Labour government that changes so little it destroys any credibility or purpose they have for a generation. Leading to another decade or so of one party Tory rule. A Tory rule far more ruthless and right-wing than their current incarnation considering Starmer's Labour will be occupying the centre-right so naturally the Tories will move further right.
I glazed over tbh.
I think one of the big divides in how one views the Labour Party is whether you believe the state of politics in this country has more to do with Jeremy Corbyn being leader of the opposition from 2015 - 2019 or New Labour being in power from 1997 - 2010.
New Labour had "Things can only get better". Has a better ring to it than "Things won't get any worse".
Easy, the best investment a government can make is to invest in education. It pays off and the payback are double or triple of the original investment.
University education should be free, yes.