Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Maybe so but isn't the interest rate 6%? Using a compound interest calculator 50k becomes £300k after 30 years. Of course, money will be repaid but it will still be difficult to catch up, and by the time you are earning £100k you will owe loads and pay loads back.
The student loan system is basically a graduate tax. Surely income tax should deal with students who earn more than non graduates that don't earn as much?
Think it's going to 6.1% which is simply a crazy rate, although that is only for the highest earners, its a scaled rate depending on what you earn.
So no it wouldn't go to 300k.
If in 20 years time you are on £100k and they still charge 9% above 21k then you're paying over £7k per annum.
Having been to visit a few universities with my daughter over the past month i've been quite impressed, but boy they must rake it in with 9k+ per student per year plus anywhere between 80 and 250 a week in accommodation for the 1st years. I don't know in detail finances but UEA that we went to on Saturday has over 15,000 students, if each pays 9k thats 135m per year just in fee's! Think they have about 5000 units of accommodation at an average of over 100 a week, thats in excess of 0.5m a week.......
Theres lots of different ways of funding Universities, fee's is one, income tax another and probably other options as well. If they stick to fee's then they need to do something about the interest rate, it shouldn't accrue interest whilst studying and then should be a sensible rate, maybe BOE base rate or slightly above.
Starting to think I should have voted Corbyn 1x student to pay for from this September, another from September 2018, another from September 2019 (thats going to be an expensive year!) and maybe one from September 2021........
Unis are making more money when they can charge their own fees, particularly from arts students since they cost a lot less to educate than science students. They are particularly anti Brexit and anything that reduces foreign student numbers... They are well and truly fleeced!
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm more worried how Corbyn intends to fund it.
Although, of course, he won't. It's just electoral bullshit to get student support.
Is it now Labour party policy to write of all past student loan debts?
Must admit during the election campaign I read this so many times on twitter, but I believe all Corbyn said was he would look at ways of reducing the burden for past students. It would be a minefield to actually do anything regardless of cost implications but he did promise to look at it........
I regard the Labour manifesto + aim to help unemployed people reeducate themselves as aspirations rather than definite pledges. If Labour were to come to power and manage to get rid of some financial turkeys, like Trident, then indeed some of the aspirations can start to materialise, maybe starting with a lowering of the student fees. But we all know that it all depends on the state of the nations finances. We could be up shit creek after Brexit but hey ho wait and see what we manage to negotiate. I just hope we don't take on yet more debt for our grandchildren to struggle to pay off.
Labour may come to power but find a note saying there is no money left, and no more coming in after this Tory Brexit. That would hamper their plans for the finances, but they would have to try to deal with the damage this Tory Brexit has and will cause.
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
You do think that, relative to inflation, they should get a year on year pay cut?
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
You do think that, relative to inflation, they should get a year on year pay cut?
Pretty much everyone else has. Is there a case for firefighters to be exempt?
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
You do think that, relative to inflation, they should get a year on year pay cut?
Pretty much everyone else has. Is there a case for firefighters to be exempt?
I don't think firefighters should be treated any differently than any other public sector worker. But it's an interesting point that wages in the UK in general are rising lower than inflation. Maybe a boost in public sector pay will boost the economy, and lead to greater tax receipts? I don't actually have an answer as to why our economy is struggling. Still suffering after effects of the 2008 crash? Brexit uncertainty and pound devaluation? Maybe things are actually fine and just readjusting
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
You do think that, relative to inflation, they should get a year on year pay cut?
Pretty much everyone else has. Is there a case for firefighters to be exempt?
I don't think firefighters should be treated any differently than any other public sector worker. But it's an interesting point that wages in the UK in general are rising lower than inflation. Maybe a boost in public sector pay will boost the economy, and lead to greater tax receipts? I don't actually have an answer as to why our economy is struggling. Still suffering after effects of the 2008 crash? Brexit uncertainty and pound devaluation? Maybe things are actually fine and just readjusting
As you say, who knows. Maybe higher interest rates would re-set the property market and reduce unsustainable levels of credit but eventually boost consumer spending because savers would feel they were getting value for money again?
Speaking as an erstwhile public sector employee over many years, I have to say that public sector pay freezes were and always have been a regular feature. The one abiding aspect though was that at some stage a tipping point was reached that forced Government, local authorities and other public sector bosses to take note of the reports of the various pay bodies and provide an uplift. I have no evidence for this but it always seemed to me that private sector pay had a nice smooth upward curve, while the public sector suffered from extreme ups and downs. But at the end of the day these things always ended up equalising the position.
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
You do think that, relative to inflation, they should get a year on year pay cut?
Pretty much everyone else has. Is there a case for firefighters to be exempt?
It is not that simple though is it? Yes most took a pay cut between 2008-2014 as average wage growth was lower than inflation, but it the scale of the pay cut relatively that is the problem. Average wage growth (including the millions of public workers limited to 1%) in the UK only fell below 1% between may 2014- august 2014:
When you factor in the number of civil servants and that the majority are actually paid below the national average, you are pushing people towards poverty. There was an article in the Guardian that showed the effects on median real income of public workers in skilled and dangerous jobs, it is only going to be similar for the many low paid in the public sector:
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
Stop playing your faux-mail-journalist games please. You repeatedly make out people write/say things that they clearly don't in order to "back up" your view of the world. Members of your party of choice cheered when nurses and firemen had their pay "frozen".
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
You do think that, relative to inflation, they should get a year on year pay cut?
Pretty much everyone else has. Is there a case for firefighters to be exempt?
It is not that simple though is it? Yes most took a pay cut between 2008-2014 as average wage growth was lower than inflation, but it the scale of the pay cut relatively that is the problem. Average wage growth (including the millions of public workers limited to 1%) in the UK only fell below 1% between may 2014- august 2014:
When you factor in the number of civil servants and that the majority are actually paid below the national average, you are pushing people towards poverty. There was an article in the Guardian that showed the effects on median real income of public workers in skilled and dangerous jobs, it is only going to be similar for the many low paid in the public sector:
I also think one needs to factor in the incredibly low interest rates when looking at the relative wealth of the population (including but not limited to public sector workers) over the last nine years. Even though income had probably fallen in real terms, with the cost of mortgages falling by so much more, it is likely that someone with a net reduction in income over the last nine years still has much more spending power than they has in 2008 with mortgage interest rates at least twice what they are today.
How many people would be happy with a £200 a month increase in net pay if the mortgage goes up by £400 a month?
Increasing interest rates and pay levels will likely have that effect.
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
You do think that, relative to inflation, they should get a year on year pay cut?
Pretty much everyone else has. Is there a case for firefighters to be exempt?
It is not that simple though is it? Yes most took a pay cut between 2008-2014 as average wage growth was lower than inflation, but it the scale of the pay cut relatively that is the problem. Average wage growth (including the millions of public workers limited to 1%) in the UK only fell below 1% between may 2014- august 2014:
When you factor in the number of civil servants and that the majority are actually paid below the national average, you are pushing people towards poverty. There was an article in the Guardian that showed the effects on median real income of public workers in skilled and dangerous jobs, it is only going to be similar for the many low paid in the public sector:
I also think one needs to factor in the incredibly low interest rates when looking at the relative wealth of the population (including but not limited to public sector workers) over the last nine years. Even though income has probably fallen in real terms, with the cost of mortgages falling by so much more, it is likely that someone with a net reduction in income over the last nine years still has much more spending power than they has in 2008 with mortgage interest rates at least twice what they are today.
How many people would be happy with a £200 a month increase in net pay if the mortgage goes up by £400 a month?
Increasing interest rates and pay levels will likely have that effect.
I agree, I just hate the 'everyone took a pay cut' line as it is fag packet economics.
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
Stop playing your faux-mail-journalist games please. You repeatedly make out people write/say things that they clearly don't in order to "back up" your view of the world. Members of your party of choice cheered when nurses and firemen had their pay "frozen".
Stop accusing me of having a party of choice please. I don't. Out of interest can you point me in the direction of some proof that Conservative party members cheered when public sector pay rises were limited? Or is that ersatz news?
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
Stop playing your faux-mail-journalist games please. You repeatedly make out people write/say things that they clearly don't in order to "back up" your view of the world. Members of your party of choice cheered when nurses and firemen had their pay "frozen".
Stop accusing me of having a party of choice please. I don't. Out of interest can you point me in the direction of some proof that Conservative party members cheered when public sector pay rises were limited? Or is that ersatz news?
You stop putting words into people's mouths and I will.
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
You do think that, relative to inflation, they should get a year on year pay cut?
Pretty much everyone else has. Is there a case for firefighters to be exempt?
It is not that simple though is it? Yes most took a pay cut between 2008-2014 as average wage growth was lower than inflation, but it the scale of the pay cut relatively that is the problem. Average wage growth (including the millions of public workers limited to 1%) in the UK only fell below 1% between may 2014- august 2014:
When you factor in the number of civil servants and that the majority are actually paid below the national average, you are pushing people towards poverty. There was an article in the Guardian that showed the effects on median real income of public workers in skilled and dangerous jobs, it is only going to be similar for the many low paid in the public sector:
I also think one needs to factor in the incredibly low interest rates when looking at the relative wealth of the population (including but not limited to public sector workers) over the last nine years. Even though income had probably fallen in real terms, with the cost of mortgages falling by so much more, it is likely that someone with a net reduction in income over the last nine years still has much more spending power than they has in 2008 with mortgage interest rates at least twice what they are today.
How many people would be happy with a £200 a month increase in net pay if the mortgage goes up by £400 a month?
Increasing interest rates and pay levels will likely have that effect.
Agree with that, and as I've said you also need to look at net pay/lower taxation now which has had a huge positive effect to lower tax payers, sadly not for higher earners!
The problem with interest rates though is it will mainly help those with a positive net worth.
That said, although what you say on interest rates/mortgages is true it doesn't help renters who have seen their rents increase considerably over recent years although there are signs of that slowing.
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
Stop playing your faux-mail-journalist games please. You repeatedly make out people write/say things that they clearly don't in order to "back up" your view of the world. Members of your party of choice cheered when nurses and firemen had their pay "frozen".
Stop accusing me of having a party of choice please. I don't. Out of interest can you point me in the direction of some proof that Conservative party members cheered when public sector pay rises were limited? Or is that ersatz news?
You stop putting words into people's mouths and I will.
That's not evidence of anything other than the voting down of an extremely stupidly worded amendment. BTW, does it sound like cheering to you? Or just a majority sigh of relief? independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-queens-speech-amendment-public-sector-pay-cap-austerity-emergency-services-tory-mps-a7813356.html I couldn't make my mind up. Meanwhile, if Corbyn had thought a good deal harder over the wording of his amendment, it might, just might have sneaked through. Although for all sorts of reasons that wasn't going to happen. Here's what one Conservative MP, Nigel Huddleston said: “The wish to pay our emergency services and public sector workers more is prevalent on both sides of the House of Commons,” he said.
“I hope we will be able to do so within a reasonable time frame. But, pay restraint exists because the public finances are tight.
“The most appropriate channel through which to legislate for changes in government spending and public sector workers pay is the budget, and I will myself be lobbying for further increases in public spending, particularly for health, education and our security services in advance of the budget.
“The Government is following the advice of an independent committee in maintaining a public sector pay cap but is seriously looking into ways a more generous pay package could be sustainably implemented in the future.
“Voting through a vaguely worded opposition amendment is not the way to go about achieving this; building a strong economic case that can be formalised through the budget is.”
But you carry on believing what you want. I really don't care.
Do we have anything in our constitution/rule of law that forbids this sort of bribe
Misappropriation In criminal law, misappropriation is the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person (me and all the other taxpayers) for one's own (The Conservative and Unionist Party) use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official.
Malfeasance The performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust).
Does it not worry people that a third of that hypothetical 100bn will never be repaid anyway?
I'm not sure I believe that, 30 years is a long time. If you'd have borrowed a similar amount 30 years ago (£50k) it would in reality have been about £18k. So although it sounds a lot today in 30 years it won't and salaries will be much higher, it's quite conceiveable that £25k salary today will be £75k in 30 years, factor in promotions etc no reason a 'normal' job will be £100k so depends if they move the amount above payable.
Unless you are a nurse or a fireman, in which case the Tories will be cheering as you get poorer...
Do you think this is rubbish money then?
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
Stop playing your faux-mail-journalist games please. You repeatedly make out people write/say things that they clearly don't in order to "back up" your view of the world. Members of your party of choice cheered when nurses and firemen had their pay "frozen".
Stop accusing me of having a party of choice please. I don't. Out of interest can you point me in the direction of some proof that Conservative party members cheered when public sector pay rises were limited? Or is that ersatz news?
You stop putting words into people's mouths and I will.
That's not evidence of anything other than the voting down of an extremely stupidly worded amendment. BTW, does it sound like cheering to you? Or just a majority sigh of relief? independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-queens-speech-amendment-public-sector-pay-cap-austerity-emergency-services-tory-mps-a7813356.html I couldn't make my mind up. Meanwhile, if Corbyn had thought a good deal harder over the wording of his amendment, it might, just might have sneaked through. Although for all sorts of reasons that wasn't going to happen. Here's what one Conservative MP, Nigel Huddleston said: “The wish to pay our emergency services and public sector workers more is prevalent on both sides of the House of Commons,” he said.
“I hope we will be able to do so within a reasonable time frame. But, pay restraint exists because the public finances are tight.
“The most appropriate channel through which to legislate for changes in government spending and public sector workers pay is the budget, and I will myself be lobbying for further increases in public spending, particularly for health, education and our security services in advance of the budget.
“The Government is following the advice of an independent committee in maintaining a public sector pay cap but is seriously looking into ways a more generous pay package could be sustainably implemented in the future.
“Voting through a vaguely worded opposition amendment is not the way to go about achieving this; building a strong economic case that can be formalised through the budget is.”
But you carry on believing what you want. I really don't care.
That is abundantly clear in every post you write about politics.
Just thinking about the churn in modern politics. Look at how the leadership has changed since the 2015 election.
Tories - 2015 Cameron, 2017 May, now strong chance of somebody else. Labour - 2015 Milliband, 2017 Corbyn, strong now but that looked unlikely a month ago. Faced one leadership battle. Lib Dem - 2015 Clegg, 2017 Farron, now somebody else. UKIP - 2015 Farage, 2016 somebody, 2017 Nuttall, now somebody else.
I know May is only calling for consensus because she realises just how screwed she is, but much like Corbyn benefited from the way that he was savaged by the Conservatives and the press, he now has to be careful not to do the same back. It is unbecoming and the British love an underdog.
He should stick to promising to spend more etc rather than putting the boot in, the lack of negativity in his campaign, in comparison with the Consevative's ridiculously negative campaign was one of the real strengths he has.
He really has the moral highground and shouldn't do anything to lower themselves to the Conservative's level.
Catch this on the Today Programme Website, comes up just before the 08.00 news.
Adonis has basically been digging into my two main concerns on this;
1. It s obviously a cartel. How can it be that Bedford Poly, as it was, can charge the same as Oxford Uni? He reminds us that £9,250 is supposed to be the MAXIMUM, for heavens sake. How come the defenders of this system on here never acknowledge that? He is taking the issue to the Comp. and Markets Authority.
2. The senior people in Unis are filling their boots. vice Chancellor at Bath on 500k a year with a nice house in the center to live in for free, and 67 more staff on more than 100k.
Classic British pseudo-private rip off. I really like Andrew Adonis, a centre left politician who actually understands proper business.
Brilliantly moderated interview by Justin Webb too. Less than 5 minutes. Any clown like Nick Ferrari can make an impact when he's got 3 hours to fill.
Theresa May wants people to come together, so do brexiters. Fuck that. They won, they can mess it up all by themselves.
It's like the Tories and Brexiters bought a bunch of different jigsaws with missing pieces from a boot sale, threw all the pieces together on the floor, then complaining that the Remainers aren't solving the puzzles quickly enough.
Catch this on the Today Programme Website, comes up just before the 08.00 news.
Adonis has basically been digging into my two main concerns on this;
1. It s obviously a cartel. How can it be that Bedford Poly, as it was, can charge the same as Oxford Uni? He reminds us that £9,250 is supposed to be the MAXIMUM, for heavens sake. How come the defenders of this system on here never acknowledge that? He is taking the issue to the Comp. and Markets Authority.
2. The senior people in Unis are filling their boots. vice Chancellor at Bath on 500k a year with a nice house in the center to live in for free, and 67 more staff on more than 100k.
Classic British pseudo-private rip off. I really like Andrew Adonis, a centre left politician who actually understands proper business.
Brilliantly moderated interview by Justin Webb too. Less than 5 minutes. Any clown like Nick Ferrari can make an impact when he's got 3 hours to fill.
Pointed that out in one of my earlier posts about vice chancellors - total disgrace.
It is a fake consensus May is seeking, playing to the public as she thinks the public want consensus - which they do but they are not stupid enough to fall for this. The sort of consensus that would be genuine would be bringing opponents into government in some way. What they are now basically saying is give us your ideas and we'll take the ones on that match up with what we want to do. Don't and you look unreasonable.
It is appropriate for Corbyn to send May the Labour manifesto - it isn't like Labour's ideas are secret - they are all written down in that document!
Comments
So no it wouldn't go to 300k.
If in 20 years time you are on £100k and they still charge 9% above 21k then you're paying over £7k per annum.
Having been to visit a few universities with my daughter over the past month i've been quite impressed, but boy they must rake it in with 9k+ per student per year plus anywhere between 80 and 250 a week in accommodation for the 1st years. I don't know in detail finances but UEA that we went to on Saturday has over 15,000 students, if each pays 9k thats 135m per year just in fee's! Think they have about 5000 units of accommodation at an average of over 100 a week, thats in excess of 0.5m a week.......
Theres lots of different ways of funding Universities, fee's is one, income tax another and probably other options as well. If they stick to fee's then they need to do something about the interest rate, it shouldn't accrue interest whilst studying and then should be a sensible rate, maybe BOE base rate or slightly above.
Starting to think I should have voted Corbyn
That would hamper their plans for the finances, but they would have to try to deal with the damage this Tory Brexit has and will cause.
Sorry file didn't load. But a trained firefighter starts on £29k. That's much higher than the UK average wage. (As it should be.)
Speaking as an erstwhile public sector employee over many years, I have to say that public sector pay freezes were and always have been a regular feature. The one abiding aspect though was that at some stage a tipping point was reached that forced Government, local authorities and other public sector bosses to take note of the reports of the various pay bodies and provide an uplift. I have no evidence for this but it always seemed to me that private sector pay had a nice smooth upward curve, while the public sector suffered from extreme ups and downs. But at the end of the day these things always ended up equalising the position.
bbc.co.uk/news/business-39945782
When you factor in the number of civil servants and that the majority are actually paid below the national average, you are pushing people towards poverty. There was an article in the Guardian that showed the effects on median real income of public workers in skilled and dangerous jobs, it is only going to be similar for the many low paid in the public sector:
https://theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/03/damning-government-report-shows-scale-of-public-sector-pay-cuts
Corbyn is not my cup of tea but I do know he's not stupid.
How many people would be happy with a £200 a month increase in net pay if the mortgage goes up by £400 a month?
Increasing interest rates and pay levels will likely have that effect.
Here's some evidence for you.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/public-sector-pay-cap-vote-conservatives-cheer-tory-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-dup-a7813661.html
The problem with interest rates though is it will mainly help those with a positive net worth.
That said, although what you say on interest rates/mortgages is true it doesn't help renters who have seen their rents increase considerably over recent years although there are signs of that slowing.
“I hope we will be able to do so within a reasonable time frame. But, pay restraint exists because the public finances are tight.
“The most appropriate channel through which to legislate for changes in government spending and public sector workers pay is the budget, and I will myself be lobbying for further increases in public spending, particularly for health, education and our security services in advance of the budget.
“The Government is following the advice of an independent committee in maintaining a public sector pay cap but is seriously looking into ways a more generous pay package could be sustainably implemented in the future.
“Voting through a vaguely worded opposition amendment is not the way to go about achieving this; building a strong economic case that can be formalised through the budget is.”
But you carry on believing what you want. I really don't care.
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/tory-dup-confidence-supply-deal-facing-legal-challenge/
Tories - 2015 Cameron, 2017 May, now strong chance of somebody else.
Labour - 2015 Milliband, 2017 Corbyn, strong now but that looked unlikely a month ago. Faced one leadership battle.
Lib Dem - 2015 Clegg, 2017 Farron, now somebody else.
UKIP - 2015 Farage, 2016 somebody, 2017 Nuttall, now somebody else.
Has there ever been times of such rapid turnover?
He should stick to promising to spend more etc rather than putting the boot in, the lack of negativity in his campaign, in comparison with the Consevative's ridiculously negative campaign was one of the real strengths he has.
He really has the moral highground and shouldn't do anything to lower themselves to the Conservative's level.
Catch this on the Today Programme Website, comes up just before the 08.00 news.
Adonis has basically been digging into my two main concerns on this;
1. It s obviously a cartel. How can it be that Bedford Poly, as it was, can charge the same as Oxford Uni? He reminds us that £9,250 is supposed to be the MAXIMUM, for heavens sake. How come the defenders of this system on here never acknowledge that? He is taking the issue to the Comp. and Markets Authority.
2. The senior people in Unis are filling their boots. vice Chancellor at Bath on 500k a year with a nice house in the center to live in for free, and 67 more staff on more than 100k.
Classic British pseudo-private rip off. I really like Andrew Adonis, a centre left politician who actually understands proper business.
Brilliantly moderated interview by Justin Webb too. Less than 5 minutes. Any clown like Nick Ferrari can make an impact when he's got 3 hours to fill.
Fuck that.
They won, they can mess it up all by themselves.
It is appropriate for Corbyn to send May the Labour manifesto - it isn't like Labour's ideas are secret - they are all written down in that document!