Westminster Politics 2024-2029

Dan_F said:
I can’t work out how much smaller European countries than the UK can provide higher levels of education, including free university. The only conclusion I can come to, after spending a fairly considerable amount of time in one of them, is the disparity between richest and poorest. It seems like in every industry in the UK, big companies cream profit off the top for billionaires to get richer at the expense of everyone else. I don’t know what else can explain it.
Click to expand...

British universities have spent millions building fancy facilities to attract overseas students, and now they've stopped coming in such numbers there's a shortfall.
 
Giggsyking said:
Her loyalty is to her country, not the party. If her party is filled with corrupt politicians who want to freeze pensioners to death do you blame her quiting?
Click to expand...
You mean, declaring donations, in ways that are within the rules, and means testing winter fuel payments to the richest demographic in the UK.

But "corruption" and "freezing pensioners" feels better to write, I guess.
 
Frosty said:
The increase to 9k fees did not actually provide more money to universities. It replaced a 70-80% cut in state funding which Osborne and Cameron no longer wanted to provide. Students as consumers would pay for the majority of university funding. And those fees would be something like 12k or so now just from inflation.

It is tricky to give a clear list that is applicable to all institutions. Oxford and Cambridge have billions in endowments. New universities may have as little as a million.

OUP and CUP as global publishers have never paid any tax here as Henry VIII made them that promise. So that's a massive income stream not available to the majority of institutions.

However, there are some big costs:

Staff:

- there is national pay bargaining, so a lecturers usually start on point 31 or 32 of this scale: https://www.ucu.org.uk/he_singlepayspine
- it is a good wage, but considering a PhD is a prerequisite for the job, and a PhD requires a Masters degree, it is unusual now for people to start work in their 20s
- a university could have 1,000 academics or more
- every year a member of staff moves up the salary scale one point, as well as receiving an annual uplift
- university management salaries are large, but overall it may amount to £6-£10 million annually -- a lot, but not a large proportion
- usually over half of university employees are not academics but include cleaners, gardeners, IT, security, technicians, clerical staff, administrative support and so on, as well as recruitment staff whose sole role is to travel and market the institution around the world
- this can cost tens of millions alone

Buildings:

- many universities are postwar and have many buildings made from concrete (and many have RAAC)
- these buildings are often past their lifespan, are poorly insulated, are filled with asbestos, and cost millions just to heat and maintain
- many universities need new buildings because of the point above, and those can easily cost tens of millions, which are usually paid for by long-term loans with a 20-50 year span, again costing millions a year
- student accommodation usually has a 1-2% working surplus, meaning the fortune students are charged barely covers heating, food, staff, repairs, security (very important), and many more

Research and teaching costs:

- academics produce research as part of their job, which they are paid for
- academics publish that material and do not get paid extra for this
- those journals are owned by MNCs (Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, Springer) who sell the publications back to the institutions that produce them, with licensing costs sometimes being tens of thousands of pounds per journal
- having up to date research and materials in a library can and does cost tens of millions annually (it is a racket which should be smashed)
- in the hard sciences equipment to produce research costs tens if not hundreds of thousands
- paying for lab equipment for teaching adds to that cost
- I haven't checked in the last couple of years but the last estimate I saw was that a science degree can cost 20-25k a year to teach a student, and more for medicine and dentistry
- even in the humanities and social sciences, if you want reasonable class sizes you may need 100 academic staff members to deliver all the modules and courses run in one subject
- an intake of 200 students per year, with class sizes in seminars of around 10, and full year lectures for the first year, can be reasonably delivered by 30-40 academics
- if you get academics to teach more, they cannot produce research, which is what is meant to underpin university teaching; if you do that, then I would say there is no point students going to that university

- a lot of important activities (open days, induction, clearing and admissions, day to day administration, exam boards) are done by academics and not support staff
- this 'saves' the institution employing more staff, and is in contrast to what happens in say the USA, where there is more money but also an expectation that academics will just do academics

Andrew McGettigan's work is excellent on all of this. He wrote about the 'Big University Gamble' in 2013 which basically predicted all this. Universities have been left to the whims of the market, which assumes only the best will survive. This is nonsensical (and contradictory) considering that universities are also seen by Government as a key regional employer and investment vehicle (which kind of assumes you want them to continue existing).

It also is problematic as universities are now allowed to take as many students as possible. This has led the richest to increase numbers in 'cheap' degrees to teach (humanities and social sciences), putting increased pressure on the poorer (and newer) universities. But again, this has no bearing on what skills the government needs universities to help students have to meet economic needs. Successive governments have set up a system where too many students get degrees which are seen as worthless (which the government criticises without mentioning their policies caused it), and where some universities and local economies will go to the wall, costing countless more jobs (but they don't want to change the underlying funding model to provide stability).

Further Reading

Andrew McGettigan: https://www.lrb.co.uk/contributors/andrew-mcgettigan?filter=articles

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03079-w

https://taso.org.uk/news-item/why-t...isis-for-social-mobility-and-economic-growth/
Click to expand...

great post.
just a small point, but i'd guess most (almost all) science research funding comes from grants given to the professors/students directly by the govt, that should cover their salaries and equipment.
but the next point is right - the college must pay for teaching labs, where you need cheaper stuff, but in large amounts, and it's much more liable to break since it's being handled by undergrads with zero experience.
 
berbatrick said:
great post.
just a small point, but i'd guess most (almost all) science research funding comes from grants given to the professors/students directly by the govt, that should cover their salaries and equipment.
but the next point is right - the college must pay for teaching labs, where you need cheaper stuff, but in large amounts, and it's much more liable to break since it's being handled by undergrads with zero experience.
Click to expand...
You are right. This is from a Lords report on how science research is funded in HE (from 2020):

How is science research currently funded?

There are two main sources of funding for higher education institutions, which vary by nation. In England, the two sources of public funding are:

- direct, from funding councils (research and teaching) and research councils; and

- indirect, from student loans.

Most funding for research in higher education institutions comes from direct funding routes. The committee noted that, in 2017/18, 62% of research in UK higher education institutions was publicly funded. Other significant sources of funding included UK charities (15%), UK businesses (4%) and EU sources (11%).

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/funding-science-research-in-universities/

This is also why Brexit was a serious impediment to research.
 
Frosty said:
You are right. This is from a Lords report on how science research is funded in HE (from 2020):

How is science research currently funded?

There are two main sources of funding for higher education institutions, which vary by nation. In England, the two sources of public funding are:

- direct, from funding councils (research and teaching) and research councils; and

- indirect, from student loans.

Most funding for research in higher education institutions comes from direct funding routes. The committee noted that, in 2017/18, 62% of research in UK higher education institutions was publicly funded. Other significant sources of funding included UK charities (15%), UK businesses (4%) and EU sources (11%).

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/funding-science-research-in-universities/

This is also why Brexit was a serious impediment to research.
Click to expand...
Great posts.

An additional point is that research is generally loss making. Generally, govt grants cover 80% of the full econonic costs; most charitable grants cover only a fraction. The quality based (REF-linked) funding contributes a few millions for most institutions, and is in any case historical, so not really aligned with the many 'gowth' ambitions of universities.

As a result, the estimated recovery of research costs through direct funding is a shade under 70%, and this number has been declining gradually over the years. So research intensive universities have to subsidise research, mostly through overseas student fees, which also subsdise the cost of teaching UK students. So, predictably, declining overseas numbers have made a significant number of universities financially precarious, among them some Russel group universities.

The funding model is broken.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
“Display the Star of David to make Jews feel safe”

“Remove cartoon character mural because children may feel too safe”

This lad needs to be kicked into the sun.
Click to expand...

He's just doing what he's paid to do. When you have MPs who are beholden to other countries interests for their funding then this is the shite you get. Every time you see these stories a quick Google will show they've received tens of thousands from Israeli lobby groups/persons.

It's really imperative we get a handle on political donations.
 
Smores said:
He's just doing what he's paid to do. When you have MPs who are beholden to other countries interests for their funding then this is the shite you get. Every time you see these stories a quick Google will show they've received tens of thousands from Israeli lobby groups/persons.

It's really imperative we get a handle on political donations.
Click to expand...

What’s maddening is this is really simple stuff.

A fully searchable public list that’s available to download monthly. A data pack that’s easy to ingest for anyone that needs it. I’ve taken a look at what we currently have. It’s deliberately sh1t.

It’s journalism’s job to produce content from that, that draws clear lines of sight between money in, and policy pushed / voted on.

The scrutiny over Starmers gifts and donations vs Jenricks £75k is through the looking glass stuff. However anyone feels about it; Donations and gifts that are under thresholds and declared vs cold hard cash direct to an MP, and potential party leader.
 


How can anyone with two brain cells wired together ever vote for a party that the leader is this donkey?
 
Anyone seeing stuff from this Liz Truss Q&A?

Someone, preferably a medical professional, really needs to check in on her!
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Anyone seeing stuff from this Liz Truss Q&A?

Someone, preferably a medical professional, really needs to check in on her!
Click to expand...
She’s genuinely off her rocker. She’s as close as we have in British politics to a bat shit crazy MAGA Republican.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Anyone seeing stuff from this Liz Truss Q&A?

Someone, preferably a medical professional, really needs to check in on her!
Click to expand...
I love this:

Truss says the establishment used to be conservative, but now it is liberal left. But the Conservative party has not acknowledged that, she says.

Q: Why are there so few conservatives in academia?

Truss says conservatives stopped getting tenure.

She says they used to be viewed as a curiosity in academia. Now they are being hounded out.

She says the UK should follow Trump’s policy, and defund universitites if they exclude rightwing voices.

Checks notes.... tenure was abolished in 1988 by.... Margaret Thatcher.
 
Stuff like this is why I will miss twitter when its gone. Tory, labour, they are full of people so sure of their own superiority they shout this stuff into the void without a second thought of whether it actually looks good or not.

Here its a labour MP, who after having a week off work to attend the company booze up, decides that she needs a week off instead of actually doing her job. The public remind her shes a blagger who probably wants to start earning her 90 grand a year.

 
not only is she batshit crazy, the more trumpian her comments the bigger the cheers in the audience.
and on Boris, she seriously believes him lying to protect Pincher, was something he could have just ridden out?
 
Superden said:
not only is she batshit crazy, the more trumpian her comments the bigger the cheers in the audience.
and on Boris, she seriously believes him lying to protect Pincher, was something he could have just ridden out?
Click to expand...

The cheers are exactly why truss and her pals were absolutely sure they were killing it with that budget. No one had ever told her no, this is a bad idea, because all of them are true beleivers. The only people at tufton street who understand what those policies would do are the ones who made bank from the collapse, and they would do it again in a heartbeat.

In a way, truss shows why donations are so bad. We have poor quality politicians who understand very little of anything, if we keep allowing rich people to buy them, they will keep pushing policies that keep causing chaos in the country, because they make money from the chaos.
 
from the Guardian:

"Robert Jenrick seems to have won the backing of the European Research Group, which represents hardline, pro-Brexit Tory MPs, Sky News reports.

At a fringe meeting this morning, John Redwood and Bill Cash, two ex-MPs who were leading figures in the group, said they felt the last government had failed to take advantage of the opportunities provided by Brexit. But Jenrick could turn things round, they said, according to Sky."

these people are now beyond satire.
 
Frosty said:
I love this:

Truss says the establishment used to be conservative, but now it is liberal left. But the Conservative party has not acknowledged that, she says.

Q: Why are there so few conservatives in academia?

Truss says conservatives stopped getting tenure.

She says they used to be viewed as a curiosity in academia. Now they are being hounded out.

She says the UK should follow Trump’s policy, and defund universitites if they exclude rightwing voices.

Checks notes.... tenure was abolished in 1988 by.... Margaret Thatcher.
Click to expand...

She's such a clown. One of the worst politicians in my life time and that's saying something.
 
Superden said:
from the Guardian:

"Robert Jenrick seems to have won the backing of the European Research Group, which represents hardline, pro-Brexit Tory MPs, Sky News reports.

At a fringe meeting this morning, John Redwood and Bill Cash, two ex-MPs who were leading figures in the group, said they felt the last government had failed to take advantage of the opportunities provided by Brexit. But Jenrick could turn things round, they said, according to Sky."

these people are now beyond satire.
Click to expand...

John Redwood and Bill Cash eh. Say no more. Two highly questionable individuals.
Just like the ghosts of Christmas past.
 






Can we put to bed this 'Labour are just as bad as the Tories' for declaring gifts with the guidance, when the leadership contenders for the Tories are coming out with this?
 
Nogbadthebad said:
The cheers are exactly why truss and her pals were absolutely sure they were killing it with that budget. No one had ever told her no, this is a bad idea, because all of them are true beleivers. The only people at tufton street who understand what those policies would do are the ones who made bank from the collapse, and they would do it again in a heartbeat.

In a way, truss shows why donations are so bad. We have poor quality politicians who understand very little of anything, if we keep allowing rich people to buy them, they will keep pushing policies that keep causing chaos in the country, because they make money from the chaos.
Click to expand...

She held a closed meeting with a group of FTSE100 CEO's a couple of weeks before she became PM and asked them what they'd like to see from her. They apparently played her like a fiddle.
 
Jericholyte2 said:






Can we put to bed this 'Labour are just as bad as the Tories' for declaring gifts with the guidance, when the leadership contenders for the Tories are coming out with this?
Click to expand...

This is what you get when the "left" alternative adopt right-wing rhetoric and policy in order to win power. Starmer and his backers have enabled this. It will only get worse.

We're in a race to the bottom.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
Do you have the stats behind the paywall because, seeing it commissioned by The Telegraph doesn’t exactly instil me in confidence regarding impartiality.
Click to expand...
It's all on here, theres a ton of data though, and I can't find the specific stat around preference that is cited. The closest I can get to seeing the numbers say that 29% think Starmer is doing very bad job, vs 31% for Sunak. I don't think that is a very meaningful stat tbh.
 
nickm said:
It's all on here, theres a ton of data though, and I can't find the specific stat around preference that is cited. The closest I can get to seeing the numbers say that 29% think Starmer is doing very bad job, vs 31% for Sunak. I don't think that is a very meaningful stat tbh.
Click to expand...

Many thanks!
 
Bert_ said:
This is what you get when the "left" alternative adopt right-wing rhetoric and policy in order to win power. Starmer and his backers have enabled this. It will only get worse.

We're in a race to the bottom.
Click to expand...
Ahh but that's a chicken and egg situation, or the Overton window.

Tories were moving further and further right under Cameron, May, Boris, Truss, Sunak and that was when Milliband / Corbyn were leading the Opposition. I'd argue that, as the Tories went more and more niche and further to the right, the 'centre-right' became a vacuum which Labour then populated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.