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!
Indeed. It's a publicity stunt, and a cheap and tacky one at that.
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!
Indeed. It's a publicity stunt, and a cheap and tacky one at that.
She walked right into it imo. You would hope Corbyn would be above it, but such is the silliness of politics and social media now, tabloid crap etc, politicians think this acceptable behaviour
When i look/listen to politicians, especially the supremely educated twats like Boris Johnson, it's like they've never progressed from cussing one another at secondary school
I was really disappointed to read @stonemuse echoing Gove's argument that people who don't go to uni shouldn't "subsidise" those who do, through their taxes.
What a sad, selfish argument.
@PragueAddick Really! It's sad and selfish that I think of those who have no chance of getting to university?!?
I'll leave my response to James Forsyth, a person I do not usually back but who has it right on this occasion:
'Take tuition fees. Rather than talking apologetically about the need for a ‘national debate’ on the matter, as Damian Green bizarrely did at the weekend, the Tories should be making the social-justice case for them. They should be relentlessly pointing out that scrapping fees, as Corbyn wishes, would amount to a massive bung to the middle classes. What is progressive about having someone stacking supermarket shelves subsidise the Oxbridge law degree of a future commercial QC? Corbyn’s supposedly progressive agenda is often just a cover for the economic self-interest of the intelligentsia.
At the same time, the Tories should move to sort out the mess that is the Student Loan Company. Given how cheaply government can borrow, it is hard to see the justification for the more than six per cent interest rate that is to be charged on student loans. They also should be on the side of the students and teaching staff against greedy vice-chancellors, who have somehow managed to end up paying themselves, on average, more than a quarter of a million pounds a year.'
Another article that clearly reflects my views, this time by Peter Wilby in the New Statesman:
"As many readers will know, I am a defender of student fees. As a socialist, I support universal public services. “Free higher education” was not such a service because it excluded more than half the population. Universities were (and are) available not according to need or demand, as other public services are, but according to “ability to benefit”, defined by the possession of credentials that the children of the affluent are best placed to acquire. Compelling the excluded to pay, through their taxes, for privileged students to reproduce their cultural capital and access elite jobs is, to my mind, wrong."
That was still never an argument for the introduction of fees in the first place and certainly not one used to justify any kind of fees in similar countries that have some form of fees. It has been repeatedly exposed as a fallacy that the non-uni going part of the population gets zero benefit from a subsidised education system.
Fees at £1000 a year could perhaps be justified. The current fee structure simply cannot.
That was still never an argument for the introduction of fees in the first place and certainly not one used to justify any kind of fees in similar countries that have some form of fees. It has been repeatedly exposed as a fallacy that the non-uni going part of the population gets zero benefit from a subsidised education system.
Fees at £1000 a year could perhaps be justified. The current fee structure simply cannot.
This, all day long.
@stonemuse as a supporter of the current system could you explain to us why it is ok that, as pointed out by Lord Adonis, Bedford Poly charges students £9,250, the same as a place up the road called Oxford University? We know that you agree that vice-chancellors coining it, is a disgrace, but my question is, how would you change the system so that it doesn't occur?
That was still never an argument for the introduction of fees in the first place and certainly not one used to justify any kind of fees in similar countries that have some form of fees. It has been repeatedly exposed as a fallacy that the non-uni going part of the population gets zero benefit from a subsidised education system.
Fees at £1000 a year could perhaps be justified. The current fee structure simply cannot.
This, all day long.
@stonemuse as a supporter of the current system could you explain to us why it is ok that, as pointed out by Lord Adonis, Bedford Poly charges students £9,250, the same as a place up the road called Oxford University? We know that you agree that vice-chancellors coining it, is a disgrace, but my question is, how would you change the system so that it doesn't occur?
If I had any expertise or background in this area, I would do my best to give you a reasoned assessment of how we should fix such a ridiculous situation. But I do not have that knowledge and therefore cannot give any suggestions that have a basis in fact. Others who are more experienced can, I am sure, give their input.
My comments have been from a high level, and the two quotes that I gave fairly represented my viewpoint.
That was still never an argument for the introduction of fees in the first place and certainly not one used to justify any kind of fees in similar countries that have some form of fees. It has been repeatedly exposed as a fallacy that the non-uni going part of the population gets zero benefit from a subsidised education system.
Fees at £1000 a year could perhaps be justified. The current fee structure simply cannot.
This, all day long.
@stonemuse as a supporter of the current system could you explain to us why it is ok that, as pointed out by Lord Adonis, Bedford Poly charges students £9,250, the same as a place up the road called Oxford University? We know that you agree that vice-chancellors coining it, is a disgrace, but my question is, how would you change the system so that it doesn't occur?
If I had any expertise or background in this area, I would do my best to give you a reasoned assessment of how we should fix such a ridiculous situation. But I do not have that knowledge and therefore cannot give any suggestions that have a basis in fact. Others who are more experienced can, I am sure, give their input.
My comments have been from a high level, and the two quotes that I gave fairly represented my viewpoint.
But while one can respect the answer that admits to not having sufficient knowledge, doesn't it beg the question whether you should be in favour of a policy that has not been properly thought through? This policy is a chip off the old utility privatization block. Dreamed up by rightwing ideologues who worship "the market" but have never really worked in markets that ordinary people are customers of. The vice chancellors coining it are the latest version of the utility company CEOs who pay themselves a fortune on the basis that its the market rate for a CEO, but never get hired by proper companies because they are second rate. What has been created is not a market but a cartel, where every two bob ex Poly charges a fee which was supposed to be a maximum, but has become the universal going rate. Surely you can see that that is absurd? Well Andrew Adonis can, he is taking his complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority, mind you I have my doubts about that lot too.
That was still never an argument for the introduction of fees in the first place and certainly not one used to justify any kind of fees in similar countries that have some form of fees. It has been repeatedly exposed as a fallacy that the non-uni going part of the population gets zero benefit from a subsidised education system.
Fees at £1000 a year could perhaps be justified. The current fee structure simply cannot.
This, all day long.
@stonemuse as a supporter of the current system could you explain to us why it is ok that, as pointed out by Lord Adonis, Bedford Poly charges students £9,250, the same as a place up the road called Oxford University? We know that you agree that vice-chancellors coining it, is a disgrace, but my question is, how would you change the system so that it doesn't occur?
If I had any expertise or background in this area, I would do my best to give you a reasoned assessment of how we should fix such a ridiculous situation. But I do not have that knowledge and therefore cannot give any suggestions that have a basis in fact. Others who are more experienced can, I am sure, give their input.
My comments have been from a high level, and the two quotes that I gave fairly represented my viewpoint.
But while one can respect the answer that admits to not having sufficient knowledge, doesn't it beg the question whether you should be in favour of a policy that has not been properly thought through? This policy is a chip off the old utility privatization block. Dreamed up by rightwing ideologues who worship "the market" but have never really worked in markets that ordinary people are customers of. The vice chancellors coining it are the latest version of the utility company CEOs who pay themselves a fortune on the basis that its the market rate for a CEO, but never get hired by proper companies because they are second rate. What has been created is not a market but a cartel, where every two bob ex Poly charges a fee which was supposed to be a maximum, but has become the universal going rate. Surely you can see that that is absurd? Well Andrew Adonis can, he is taking his complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority, mind you I have my doubts about that lot too.
Did you see the league table of the HUNDREDS of employees in universities being paid in excess of £150k per year?
That was still never an argument for the introduction of fees in the first place and certainly not one used to justify any kind of fees in similar countries that have some form of fees. It has been repeatedly exposed as a fallacy that the non-uni going part of the population gets zero benefit from a subsidised education system.
Fees at £1000 a year could perhaps be justified. The current fee structure simply cannot.
This, all day long.
@stonemuse as a supporter of the current system could you explain to us why it is ok that, as pointed out by Lord Adonis, Bedford Poly charges students £9,250, the same as a place up the road called Oxford University? We know that you agree that vice-chancellors coining it, is a disgrace, but my question is, how would you change the system so that it doesn't occur?
If I had any expertise or background in this area, I would do my best to give you a reasoned assessment of how we should fix such a ridiculous situation. But I do not have that knowledge and therefore cannot give any suggestions that have a basis in fact. Others who are more experienced can, I am sure, give their input.
My comments have been from a high level, and the two quotes that I gave fairly represented my viewpoint.
But while one can respect the answer that admits to not having sufficient knowledge, doesn't it beg the question whether you should be in favour of a policy that has not been properly thought through? This policy is a chip off the old utility privatization block. Dreamed up by rightwing ideologues who worship "the market" but have never really worked in markets that ordinary people are customers of. The vice chancellors coining it are the latest version of the utility company CEOs who pay themselves a fortune on the basis that its the market rate for a CEO, but never get hired by proper companies because they are second rate. What has been created is not a market but a cartel, where every two bob ex Poly charges a fee which was supposed to be a maximum, but has become the universal going rate. Surely you can see that that is absurd? Well Andrew Adonis can, he is taking his complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority, mind you I have my doubts about that lot too.
Did you see the league table of the HUNDREDS of employees in universities being paid in excess of £150k per year?
I haven't, although I heard Adonis saying that 67 people at Bath are paid more than 100k, while the VC trousers nearly 500k plus a very nice house to live in.
It's like in the privatized utilities. The CEO overpays himself, so then the senior management have to be overpaid too. A British made shambles.
That was still never an argument for the introduction of fees in the first place and certainly not one used to justify any kind of fees in similar countries that have some form of fees. It has been repeatedly exposed as a fallacy that the non-uni going part of the population gets zero benefit from a subsidised education system.
Fees at £1000 a year could perhaps be justified. The current fee structure simply cannot.
This, all day long.
@stonemuse as a supporter of the current system could you explain to us why it is ok that, as pointed out by Lord Adonis, Bedford Poly charges students £9,250, the same as a place up the road called Oxford University? We know that you agree that vice-chancellors coining it, is a disgrace, but my question is, how would you change the system so that it doesn't occur?
If I had any expertise or background in this area, I would do my best to give you a reasoned assessment of how we should fix such a ridiculous situation. But I do not have that knowledge and therefore cannot give any suggestions that have a basis in fact. Others who are more experienced can, I am sure, give their input.
My comments have been from a high level, and the two quotes that I gave fairly represented my viewpoint.
But while one can respect the answer that admits to not having sufficient knowledge, doesn't it beg the question whether you should be in favour of a policy that has not been properly thought through? This policy is a chip off the old utility privatization block. Dreamed up by rightwing ideologues who worship "the market" but have never really worked in markets that ordinary people are customers of. The vice chancellors coining it are the latest version of the utility company CEOs who pay themselves a fortune on the basis that its the market rate for a CEO, but never get hired by proper companies because they are second rate. What has been created is not a market but a cartel, where every two bob ex Poly charges a fee which was supposed to be a maximum, but has become the universal going rate. Surely you can see that that is absurd? Well Andrew Adonis can, he is taking his complaint to the Competition and Markets Authority, mind you I have my doubts about that lot too.
Did you see the league table of the HUNDREDS of employees in universities being paid in excess of £150k per year?
I haven't, although I heard Adonis saying that 67 people at Bath are paid more than 100k, while the VC trousers nearly 500k plus a very nice house to live in.
It's like in the privatized utilities. The CEO overpays himself, so then the senior management have to be overpaid too. A British made shambles.
Top 30 US college president all earn more than $1m the highest earns in excess of 5m!!
So is the issue the principle of student fees of the level of them?
The principle is no fees but if there needs to be one, it should not be excessive or require a huge administrative system to keep tabs on it all, and most of all actually have a purpose. The single reason why successive government have jacked up fees time and time again is to 'encourage competition' yet you'd struggle to find any university that doesn't charge the maximum for all of its courses. The system has failed in its single purpose and ought to be scrapped, there is simply no sensible argument for keeping the current fee structure.
I don't think huskaris is expressing a view on either, and could even be saying that are as bad as each other... It's just that right and left tend to focus on different ones. Which they do.
There is a group called Blue Fox which has been formed by Conservatives against Fox hunting and they do have support from a number of Tory MPs. Can't see how supporting a blood sport should have anything to do with your political views in other areas. The problem is that a miniscule percentage of the population partake in this evil activity and they have the power and influence to overcome that fact.
Having Conservatives stand up against this is important as we can't have it returned the next time they have a big majority, whenever that may be. Most Conservative voters do oppose it (I think about two thirds).
I don't think huskaris is expressing a view on either, and could even be saying that are as bad as each other... It's just that right and left tend to focus on different ones. Which they do.
And this is basically what I was getting at. Anyone who has a strong opinion against one and not the other is simply satisfying their own prejudices.
There is a group called Blue Fox which has been formed by Conservatives against Fox hunting and they do have support from a number of Tory MPs. Can't see how supporting a blood sport should have anything to do with your political views in other areas. The problem is that a miniscule percentage of the population partake in this evil activity and they have the power and influence to overcome that fact.
Having Conservatives stand up against this is important as we can't have it returned the next time they have a big majority, whenever that may be. Most Conservative voters do oppose it (I think about two thirds).
Are you sure Blue Fox wasn't formed to campaign against Liam Fox? An equally laudable cause I would suggest!
There is a group called Blue Fox which has been formed by Conservatives against Fox hunting and they do have support from a number of Tory MPs. Can't see how supporting a blood sport should have anything to do with your political views in other areas. The problem is that a miniscule percentage of the population partake in this evil activity and they have the power and influence to overcome that fact.
Having Conservatives stand up against this is important as we can't have it returned the next time they have a big majority, whenever that may be. Most Conservative voters do oppose it (I think about two thirds).
I don't think huskaris is expressing a view on either, and could even be saying that are as bad as each other... It's just that right and left tend to focus on different ones. Which they do.
And this is basically what I was getting at. Anyone who has a strong opinion against one and not the other is simply satisfying their own prejudices.
Well i have a strong opinion on both. They are both cruel and should be banned
Comments
When i look/listen to politicians, especially the supremely educated twats like Boris Johnson, it's like they've never progressed from cussing one another at secondary school
Denotes Tory cabinet ministers who have recently converted to anti-austerity, such as Johnson and Gove.
"As many readers will know, I am a defender of student fees. As a socialist, I support universal public services. “Free higher education” was not such a service because it excluded more than half the population. Universities were (and are) available not according to need or demand, as other public services are, but according to “ability to benefit”, defined by the possession of credentials that the children of the affluent are best placed to acquire. Compelling the excluded to pay, through their taxes, for privileged students to reproduce their cultural capital and access elite jobs is, to my mind, wrong."
Fees at £1000 a year could perhaps be justified. The current fee structure simply cannot.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/jonathan-acworth-1?utm_id=60&utm_term=N58WWE4rp
@stonemuse as a supporter of the current system could you explain to us why it is ok that, as pointed out by Lord Adonis, Bedford Poly charges students £9,250, the same as a place up the road called Oxford University? We know that you agree that vice-chancellors coining it, is a disgrace, but my question is, how would you change the system so that it doesn't occur?
My comments have been from a high level, and the two quotes that I gave fairly represented my viewpoint.
It's like in the privatized utilities. The CEO overpays himself, so then the senior management have to be overpaid too. A British made shambles.
Animal cruelty is wrong full stop.
Having Conservatives stand up against this is important as we can't have it returned the next time they have a big majority, whenever that may be. Most Conservative voters do oppose it (I think about two thirds).
They are both cruel and should be banned