Not disagreeing but the biggest reason was the 'need' for more kids to go to university in the first place, no idea what it is now but if I recall correctky it was something like 50%, that led to an expansion of places that were never funded in the first place and TBH are and probably always will be unaffordable
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
The 50% target is problematic because there is no connection between the courses being studied and the needs of the economy. T levels and apprenticeships are a response to this, but they are piecemeal and not yet bedded in.
You can go back even further to the new universities in 1992 and the removal of polytechnics from local authority control. Now you do not have universities being run to benefit the local economy and area.
There are plenty of ways of solving the funding issue in the short term. Redistributing funds is one. The richest universities are piling up surpluses. Reinstituting student limits is another that would provide security to the at risk institutions.
OUP and CUP haven't paid a penny of tax since the reign of Henry VIII so that could be low hanging fruit.
The problem now is that many small towns have one or two universities that dramatically boost the local economy. There needs to be some idea of what will replace them in the short term, apart from a government bailout.
Ultimately I haven't seen a political proposal reducing access to HE that won't massively impact poorer students. And I have seen kids from poorer parts of the UK come to university and end up in good jobs and with better life prospects. Can we reform HE without returning to the 1950s?
Sorry for the ramble.
Not a ramble, there's plenty for a valid discussion, I never went to university, I would never have passed the exams at that time and I had no interest in going
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...gling-gangs-with-tactics-used-to-jail-rioters
“I think the priority has to be on taking down the gangs that are exploiting vulnerable people … That has to stop now,” he said.
Another lurch into an alternative universe.
Keir Starmer vows to stop people-smuggling gangs with tactics used to jail rioters
Asked by the BBC if he might consider opening more safe routes for asylum seekers – a majority of those who cross the Channel are subsequently granted asylum – Starmer dismissed the suggestion.“I think the priority has to be on taking down the gangs that are exploiting vulnerable people … That has to stop now,” he said.
Another lurch into an alternative universe.
Last edited:
To be fair, my sister and I benefited from Tony Blair's expansion of university places. Also I have ended up working for one so I do have skin in the game.
One of my brothera who did go to Uni also ended up working for one, though in his case it was pre-Blair when he went
Expansion of university places in itself wasn't a bad policy, just the numbers, all that has happened is essentially a plethory of irrelevant degrees, the right policy would have been ensuring that everyone with the right quaifications could go even if they didn't have the financial resources to do so
Last edited:
.
That's a shame. They really should have considered the relative costs of freezing the elderly to death or not.
Doesn't that involve the science of cryogenics?
No.Doesn't that involve the science of cryogenics?
So virtually 1,000,000 people currently in receipt of winter fuel payments will remain eligible but have that payment withdrawn because they're currently not claiming the pension credits they're due. Have I got that right?
(From the article 1500 non-claimant average per constituency, 650 constituencies).
Freezing them to death is probably the most cost-effective solution really. It's all those that cheat the system and end up with a chronic condition made worse or who hang around in hospital who spoil it.
Personally, I'm not particularly opposed to means testing benefits. I'm even in favour of some wealth movement being conducted through the tax and benefits system.
A problem they've got this time is that by tying it to pension credit they've exposed the problems with pension credit. It comes with a lot of form filling and delays, but when it's awarded it means people are often entitled to other benefits (like rate rebates, housing benefits, free glasses etc). If everyone entitled does claim it there probably won't be a saving from the cold weather payment cut. Plus, if you're just the wrong side of the eligibility boundary it really is a cliff edge.
They could have set a different sort of boundary given that income tax exists. The least politically painful one would have been a "no higher rate tax payers gets it" as a starting point, but even a "no one who pays income tax" would still avoid the form filling.
It doesn't address the cliff edge effect on pension credit of course or the paperwork that acts along with pride and lack of knowledge to act as a barrier to people who are eligible.
But politically? What they did got them one cheap set of headlines about "tough choices" and not much credit.
You have a take home 12k or less to get pension credit. That's a very sad number.,
Some people could easily be paying more than half of that on bills alone. £2k on council tax, £2k on gas and electricity, £1k on whatever the next ludicrous water bill is going to be, if you're in a flat you've got service charge, potentially ground rent, then you've a phone / internet bill to pay, home insurance...
Having less than £100 per week to spend on food, clothes, travel etc (ok it should be free with a bus pass but still) would be very very difficult.
Best case scenario for labour witht he winte rpayments is saving around 1.6 billion quid.
It sounds a lot of money, which is why they are shouting that not doing it would create a run on the pound.
But put it in context, that government spending per year is around 1200 billion, and suddenly it doesn;t look like a lot of money, and you would have to be a raging moron or utterly dishonest to claim it would cause a run on the pound.
The entire thing is reliant on the media not giving that context. The scary thing for this country is that so far, none of them have.
It sounds a lot of money, which is why they are shouting that not doing it would create a run on the pound.
But put it in context, that government spending per year is around 1200 billion, and suddenly it doesn;t look like a lot of money, and you would have to be a raging moron or utterly dishonest to claim it would cause a run on the pound.
The entire thing is reliant on the media not giving that context. The scary thing for this country is that so far, none of them have.
Don’t ever stop shilling Laura!
But it’s true.
It is, but it shouldn't be her saying it. The Tories went 10 years before any of it started to be their fault and she is a Tory lizard creature to her core. I wouldn't mind so much if there were anybody else at the BBC who ever seemed to be asked their opinion about politics but if you're meant to be an impartial broadcaster, having one flesh creeping opinion mouthpiece just isn't right. If Gary Lineker said the equivalent sort of thing he'd be clapped in the thought police irons.
She really is ridiculous.
Maybe when they’ve been in power for longer than what 8/9 weeks??
The Tories were still blaming the previous Labour government for everything wrong with the country right up to the last election. So you would assume at least 14 years in power before they even start to have any accountability.
There's going to be years of Labour enacting Tory lite policy, policy that they previously criticised, whilst demanding the electorate understand that this time it's necessary (which the Tories also did).
It's a sad state of affairs.
It's a sad state of affairs.
The difference, which he apparanetly doesn;t see coming, is that the tory supporting press, which is most of it, are going to be running stories about how the wealthy are making out like bandits, on a loop, while he stands there and says 'we are all in it together'.
Everyone joined in with cameron, they won;t this time. Even the guardian have a few articles pointing out where the money is already. He'll be lucky to get to christmas 2025, then we get reeves or streeting. Who are both worse.
They also kept resetting the clock. Cameron talked about the coalition years as if he wasn't the PM. Boris talked about everything pre-2019 as if it was a foreign country. Truss thought that the Tory government started when the lettuce was sold. Rishi was a fresh start who couldn't be judged on the basis of the failed policies of past governments.
That's before we get to blame COVID, the Ukraine, aftermath of the 2008 crash, Brexit, remainers, small boats, experts, woke snowflakes, health workers recruited overseas who want to bring their kids with them etc etc.
We have a deeply stupid and entitled/selfish political class.
Gosh, all this 'change'. I'm quite giddy.
I think it's a throwback, we're hearing Thatcher-lite terminology about the public purse and what "every household knows".
A lot of vague talk about productivity, growth, training, targets, innovation, throw in a few platitudes about supporting hardworking families and a funding model that talks about balancing the books.
Stir in something about protecting the most vulnerable - aka "the deserving poor" - but with a two child limit, an imaginary back to work program for the disabled, others on sick leave and the older ones who could still fit in a few shifts in Tescos around caring responsibilities or doctors appointments.
I get they can't fix everything this year, but right now they're planning to do the Tories dirty work and they're going to do it the same way the Tories did. They promise a pay rise to teachers then tell schools it has to come from the existing budget - same old pass the blame on game. So the signs are they'll do the same with the local authorities - give them a whole bunch of tasks to do and no money.
Things can only get better?
Yes, we can?
No - we're being told they're planning to use our huge majority to say things can only get worse and that no we can't.
I'd like to imagine it's the political equivalent of under promising and over delivering - but they seem to be talking about what they're doing as if it's a selling point.
They are all corrupt. I don't think it starts like that, they just get people offering holidays or money for time with them and it skews there out look.
The reason I'm not a fan, is things like is below they are doing in the back ground.
Its tax payers money and while moan about the Torries doing it - It does set a precedent where as releasing could not be seen as in the public interest.
it's probably cheaper too house them like this rather than hotel them, but to hide the cost? Nah...that's a comie move.
It's the age old tactic of blaming all the problems you face on the previous people in charge. That used to be the former party in power. The tories and their media partners manged to disassociate party from the PM, and lay any and all failings on them rather than the party itself. It was the same company, just a different CEO.
To be fair - the slogan didn't say "Change for the Better"
Go back 10 years and switch the words around, "Labour" and "Tories", and you have a prominent minister in the Cameron cabinet and potential future leader of the Conservative party.
I don't know how old you are, but back then 2008 when we bailed out the banks our deficit was huge.
In other words the Torries was left with a credit card bill of an ungodly amount and gap of funding of 10% for the bill, when Labour talk about a black hole - it's not a black hole it's a gap, because it's Q3 of the financial year meaning the end of year isn't even over.
I'm sure Labour will fix a lot of things, but the lies they are using isn't a good look so early.
By the way that pandemic jump down the year after is very interesting, because it an Indicator of quantitative easing (printing money) which in turn lead to Inflation because of the supply and demand of money we had more of it.
This is incorrect.
Post pandemic inflation was caused by two things
1) supply side inflation due to scarecety - Price of imported goods rose significantly because the pandemic stopped factories and transport. It is the scarecety of real resources that causes inflation.
2) Profiteering - Distributors put up prices because they could. Furloiugh and no travel costs meant people had increased disposable income and more time to kill, businesses simply upped prices for everything as a result. Many are now going bust because they expanded to need those profit levels, and now the prices are not sustainable. EK Engineering, who make PC water cooling equipment, are a great example of this.
We printed more money in the aftermath of the financial crash, around 1.2 trillion quid in a decade. Inflation stayed below 2% for all of it.
The OBR says the 2024-5 number is expected to be 3.1%. And these gaps are adding to a debt pile which is costing us about £110 billion in interest payments a year.I don't know how old you are, but back then 2008 when we bailed out the banks our deficit was huge.
In other words the Torries was left with a credit card bill of an ungodly amount and gap of funding of 10% for the bill, when Labour talk about a black hole - it's not a black hole it's a gap, because it's Q3 of the financial year meaning the end of year isn't even over.
I'm sure Labour will fix a lot of things, but the lies they are using isn't a good look so early.
By the way that pandemic jump down the year after is very interesting, because it an Indicator of quantitative easing (printing money) which in turn lead to Inflation because of the supply and demand of money we had more of it.
Last edited:
1. Pandemic didn't stop factories in the UK if it was critical, I'll give you an example a Beauty manufacturer that did all the stuff for like charlotte tilbury just did one run of Antibacterial hand cream and boom critical business. Even KFC was actually open, I know because there warehouses are a multi shipper
Smaller companies had a choice close to take the government BORROWED money or find a way to keep out, if anything the impact on transport Delivery companies was huge I know this because i do work for all of them - apart from DPD last one on my bingo card... they are the best - top tier.
2. We might have printed a Trillion in a decade, but printing of money in a very sort time frame was a player in costs.
Almost 6% in 2010, 2012.
The war had a affect also with fual costs, shifting the energy models in Europe will have a cost in Europe over the next few years until it becomes more efficient overtime.
Piggybacking on this, Richard Murphy's writings on this are by far the most accessible.
Here is one example: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/05/01/inflation-always-goes-away/.
But Mazzucato, Piketty, Blanchflower and others have done similar work.
We could cover the 22bn shortfall just by reducing interest rates.