Can anyone explain to me what the government is trying to achieve with this tuition fee review? Presumably its aim is to make Higher Education worse - I would have reframed the debate around the graduate tax (which is pretty much what the current system is)
1) abolish the cap on fees ants from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).
2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.
I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.
Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
I am going to go with option 3....
The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.
The answer and institutions.
Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
You misunderstand: in government).
If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .
I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.
Means testing . What if you had just failed to get the grant? What then?
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Yes, that was the system. No fees for me and partial grant. The government paid back by tax.
By focusing resources on those who can’t afford it otherwise you are reducing the deadweight cost of supporting those who wold go anyway
If you position it correctly I suspect - for example - a university would choose a kid with a state academic scholarship over a full fee paying kid because it signals they are smart
In practice the rich kid would get the place. Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the chancellor anyway, might like to make a little extra donation.
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
If someone's parents can afford Eton fees they can easily afford supporting their children at university so grants and bursaries should be focused on those students who need it.
Linking fees to graduate earning premium repaid after graduation would also ensure the individual student was still responsible for their actual tuition costs based on what they were likely to earn in future.
I love the way that the word "hardline" is often added for leavers who want to implement the referendum result, but never to remoaners who want to frustrate democracy.
Perhaps May will promote a woman to chancellor for the first time. Perhaps she will be bold, and not promote a big beast to the job and make one of the newer younger ministers chancellor, possibly as a springboard for the premiership.
"possibly as a springboard for the premiership" might be why the PM does not take this advice. She has just promoted Williamson who'd barely got his feet under the Cabinet table before starting on manoeuvres. The last thing she needs is yet another would-be PM.
By focusing resources on those who can’t afford it otherwise you are reducing the deadweight cost of supporting those who wold go anyway
If you position it correctly I suspect - for example - a university would choose a kid with a state academic scholarship over a full fee paying kid because it signals they are smart
In practice the rich kid would get the place. Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the chancellor anyway, might like to make a little extra donation.
You can make the source of funding blind at the point of offer.
But I can tell from your second point it is just a question of prejudice
Trump's approval rating is 41.4% according to the latest 538 figures. He won the election with 46% so he's retaining about 90% of his support at the moment.
Trump's problem is he not winning new converts. Everyone who will vote him now voted for him last time. As he won on the narrowest of margins he will lose next time on current projections. Still I think the possibility of that changing is higher than it was before. Particularly if the Democrats choose a candidate that is less popular than Hillary Clinton.
By focusing resources on those who can’t afford it otherwise you are reducing the deadweight cost of supporting those who wold go anyway
If you position it correctly I suspect - for example - a university would choose a kid with a state academic scholarship over a full fee paying kid because it signals they are smart
In practice the rich kid would get the place. Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the chancellor anyway, might like to make a little extra donation.
You can make the source of funding blind at the point of offer.
But I can tell from your second point it is just a question of prejudice
The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.
The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.
Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
You misunderstand: in my model the taxpayer would subsidise kids from poor backgrounds to make courses affordable to everyone who justifies a place on them (within the overall spending envelope allocated the government).
If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .
I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.
Ditto. I was on a full State Scholarship which paid all fees and provided a generous maintenance grant. Some of my college friends with middle-class parents were much poorer than me as their parents couldn't afford/didn't want to top up their grants to my level. I certainly didn't feel second class!
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students today.
Surely not Liam Fox as Chancellor?' I know that post requires no ability with with numbers, but not someone who is unaware that a 90% fall in Foreign Direct Investments is not a "record breaking year", except in a sense he didn't intend.
Does Liam Fox have any ability in ANYTHING? Was he any good as a doctor?
I do not know about his ability to be a doctor but he is not going to COE
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students.
By focusing resources on those who can’t afford it otherwise you are reducing the deadweight cost of supporting those who wold go anyway
If you position it correctly I suspect - for example - a university would choose a kid with a state academic scholarship over a full fee paying kid because it signals they are smart
In practice the rich kid would get the place. Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the chancellor anyway, might like to make a little extra donation.
You can make the source of funding blind at the point of offer.
But I can tell from your second point it is just a question of prejudice
Nope, experience.
“Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the Chancellor anyway...”
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students.
That is a good thing for society and the economy.
Lot of wasted money in there as well with people who would be far better doing a trade than wasting years at University hosing up public money that is just wasted.
1) abolish the cap on fees ants from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).
2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.
I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.
Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
You misunderstand: in my model the taxpayer would subsidise kids from poor backgrounds to make courses affordable to everyone who justifies a place on them (within the overall spending envelope allocated the government).
If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .
I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.
Means testing . What if you had just failed to get the grant? What then?
Because my parents had, on paper, a decent income ..... they ran a small group of pharmacies... I only got a ‘fees’ grant. I don’t recall any differences in student attitudes. It was a bit difficult for them because my sister’s and my Uni time overlapped.
Trouble was that the tax system encouraged them to take directors fees, but commercial interests required them to use those fees in the business. I worked in the vacations and funded my social life that way.
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students.
That is a good thing for society and the economy.
It is not good for the economy which needs many more in vocational training than at Uni
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students today.
Unless you wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher or academic or senior civil servant very few went to university as few jobs needed graduates.
You could be an accountant or a stockbroker or a middle manager or a journalist with just A Levels, a police officer or nurse with just GCSEs or O Levels, now most of those who do those jobs have degrees.
By focusing resources on those who can’t afford it otherwise you are reducing the deadweight cost of supporting those who wold go anyway
If you position it correctly I suspect - for example - a university would choose a kid with a state academic scholarship over a full fee paying kid because it signals they are smart
In practice the rich kid would get the place. Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the chancellor anyway, might like to make a little extra donation.
You can make the source of funding blind at the point of offer.
But I can tell from your second point it is just a question of prejudice
Nope, experience.
“Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the Chancellor anyway...”
Are you saying familial connections with colleges do not exist and do not influence who gets accepted?
The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.
The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.
Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
I agree with that analysis. I think I'll pinch it and add it to "in my opinion". . Hope you don't mind.
We’ll make a Conservative of you yet...
No chance of that! If it wasn't for the ideology, the members and the attitude ... But, as a pragmatist I am open-minded to well argued ideas.
The feature I would add to you suggestion is that in return for a free market in courses and fees I would insist that universities picked up some/most of the cost of means-tested maintenance grants and fees. I would also introduce a free market in student loans with the government as guarantor and collector rather than let the Student Loan Company have a monopoly with exorbitant interest rates.
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students.
That is a good thing for society and the economy.
Lot of wasted money in there as well with people who would be far better doing a trade than wasting years at University hosing up public money that is just wasted.
Morning Malc - good to see we agree again - enjoy your day
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students.
That is a good thing for society and the economy.
Is it?
Or are we just in a paper chase arms race where job applicants have to have degrees whether it makes sense or not ( eg at a local university where all the admin staff have to have degrees regardless!).
We’re getting kids into debt to get a piece of paper that 40% plus of their age cohort also have - it’s wrong. Better to limit the numbers far more drastically, and have state grants etc for a bigger percentage to allow the able but less well off to go.
Emily Thornberry confirms Labour wants to be in 'some form of Customs Union' but is committed to leaving the Single Market in order to manage migration into the UK
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students today.
Unless you wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher or academic or senior civil servant very few went to university as few jobs needed graduates.
You could be an accountant or a stockbroker or a middle manager or a journalist with just A Levels, a police officer or nurse with just GCSEs or O Levels, now most of those who do those jobs have degrees.
Teaching required a two year diploma course. OK for most secondary and prinmary. Grammar schools needed degrees for lots of subjects, except I think PE. Old school friend of mine, whom I met up with again about a year ago after 50+ years, said that he’d done very well in banking with O levels.
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students.
That is a good thing for society and the economy.
Lot of wasted money in there as well with people who would be far better doing a trade than wasting years at University hosing up public money that is just wasted.
Morning Malc - good to see we agree again - enjoy your day
Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
You misunderstand: in government).
If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .
I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.
Means testing . What if you had just failed to get the grant? What then?
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
I think even students from very rich families would get a partial grant if two or more were in further education at the same time.
Rich families were also able to get the tax benefits from covenants when their children were in further education - thus giving them an incentive to make the parental contribution.
Emily Thornberry confirms Labour wants to be in 'some form of Customs Union' but is committed to leaving the single market in order to manage migration into the UK
So cigarette paper difference from the Govt. “Some kind of” could mean anything you want. Which in fairness is exactly what she wants I’m sure. Studied ambivalence, masterfully inactivity, or indeed cake and eat it.
Ruth Davidson backs leaving the Customs Union on Peston on Sunday but wants a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU post Brexit
And it will happen
And she knows the Scottish Fishing Industry wants out. Indeed they never wanted in in the first place
She also knows Gove has already said he will give it away to help the city etc. The idiots voting Tory in Moray will get their just desserts. When have Tories ever done anything to help Scotland ever.
1) abolish the cap on fees ants from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but
I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.
Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
I am going to go with option 3....
The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.
The answer and institutions.
Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
You misunderstand: in government).
If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .
I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.
Means testing . What if you had just failed to get the grant? What then?
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
That's correct. We need to stop this reflexive dislike of 'means testing'. We do need robust controls to stop the middle classes gaming the system, naturally.
Absolutely on both counts.
IMHO Labour's continual opposition to means testing puts them way out of whack with the British public's sense of fairness.
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students today.
Unless you wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher or academic or senior civil servant very few went to university as few jobs needed graduates.
You could be an accountant or a stockbroker or a middle manager or a journalist with just A Levels, a police officer or nurse with just GCSEs or O Levels, now most of those who do those jobs have degrees.
Teaching required a two year diploma course. OK for most secondary and prinmary. Grammar schools needed degrees for lots of subjects, except I think PE. Old school friend of mine, whom I met up with again about a year ago after 50+ years, said that he’d done very well in banking with O levels.
The old secondary moderns may not have needed full degrees no but grammar schools generally did as you say, the rise of comprehensive education largely coincided with the expansion of university education from the mid to late 1960s on.
The City in the 1980s was certainly full of public schoolboys and Essex boys who never went to university
Ruth Davidson backs leaving the Customs Union on Peston on Sunday but wants a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU post Brexit
And it will happen
And she knows the Scottish Fishing Industry wants out. Indeed they never wanted in in the first place
She also knows Gove has already said he will give it away to help the city etc. The idiots voting Tory in Moray will get their just desserts. When have Tories ever done anything to help Scotland ever.
Well probably helped to defeat independence. I also see the conservatives gained votes throughout Scotland and many of them are nice conservatives like me !!!!!
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students today.
Unless you wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher or academic or senior civil servant very few went to university as few jobs needed graduates.
You could be an accountant or a stockbroker or a middle manager or a journalist with just A Levels, a police officer or nurse with just GCSEs or O Levels, now most of those who do those jobs have degrees.
Teaching required a two year diploma course. OK for most secondary and prinmary. Grammar schools needed degrees for lots of subjects, except I think PE. Old school friend of mine, whom I met up with again about a year ago after 50+ years, said that he’d done very well in banking with O levels.
The old secondary moderns may not have needed full degrees no but grammar schools generally did as you say, the rise of comprehensive education largely coincided with the expansion of university education from the mid to late 1960s on.
The City in the 1980s was certainly full of public schoolboys and Essex boys who never went to university
One of my sons was one of those Essex boys in the late 80’s! Subsequently went to Uni, though.
Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
You misunderstand: in government).
If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .
I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.
Means testing . What if you had just failed to get the grant? What then?
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
I think even students from very rich families would get a partial grant if two or more were in further education at the same time.
Rich families were also able to get the tax benefits from covenants when their children were in further education - thus giving them an incentive to make the parental contribution.
See my post earlier. I think my sister got some support. And no way were we ‘rich’, so no question of covenants.
Ruth Davidson backs leaving the Customs Union on Peston on Sunday but wants a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU post Brexit
And it will happen
And she knows the Scottish Fishing Industry wants out. Indeed they never wanted in in the first place
She also knows Gove has already said he will give it away to help the city etc. The idiots voting Tory in Moray will get their just desserts. When have Tories ever done anything to help Scotland ever.
Well probably helped to defeat independence. I also see the conservatives gained votes throughout Scotland and many of them are nice conservatives like me !!!!!
G even the nice ones are deluded. The Tories are doing nothing in Scotland. The 13 no-users in Westminster do or say nothing other than parrot the London line. Davidson has been invisible for last 6 months , only ever appears on tame shows , like BBC where she does not get questions. She gets a doing every week on FM's questions and has no policies for Scotland whatsoever. She is totally self seeking and will for sure become an English MP. We will be well rid of the empty vessel.
By focusing resources on those who can’t afford it otherwise you are reducing the deadweight cost of supporting those who wold go anyway
If you position it correctly I suspect - for example - a university would choose a kid with a state academic scholarship over a full fee paying kid because it signals they are smart
In practice the rich kid would get the place. Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the chancellor anyway, might like to make a little extra donation.
You can make the source of funding blind at the point of offer.
But I can tell from your second point it is just a question of prejudice
Nope, experience.
“Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the Chancellor anyway...”
Are you saying familial connections with colleges do not exist and do not influence who gets accepted?
They used to in my day (70s-80s) - irrefutable cases of the Snodgrass extension of the college buildings going up the same year as young Tommy Snodgrass matriculated. Nowadays, I doubt it because the admissions procedure tends to be in the hands of a large committee which presumably has a fair old left wing bias, academics being what they are.
Emily Thornberry confirms Labour wants to be in 'some form of Customs Union' but is committed to leaving the single market in order to manage migration into the UK
So cigarette paper difference from the Govt. “Some kind of” could mean anything you want. Which in fairness is exactly what she wants I’m sure. Studied ambivalence, masterfully inactivity, or indeed cake and eat it.
Yes, there is virtually no difference between May's position on Brexit and Corbyn's position on Brexit now, both want to leave the EU and Single Market and Customs Union as it is now and end free movement but get a comprehensive FTA with the EU.
May is now closer to Corbyn on Brexit than she is to JRM and Corbyn is now closer to May on Brexit than he is to Chuka Umunna.
Ruth Davidson backs leaving the Customs Union on Peston on Sunday but wants a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU post Brexit
And it will happen
And she knows the Scottish Fishing Industry wants out. Indeed they never wanted in in the first place
She also knows Gove has already said he will give it away to help the city etc. The idiots voting Tory in Moray will get their just desserts. When have Tories ever done anything to help Scotland ever.
Well probably helped to defeat independence. I also see the conservatives gained votes throughout Scotland and many of them are nice conservatives like me !!!!!
G even the nice ones are deluded. The Tories are doing nothing in Scotland. The 13 no-users in Westminster do or say nothing other than parrot the London line. Davidson has been invisible for last 6 months , only ever appears on tame shows , like BBC where she does not get questions. She gets a doing every week on FM's questions and has no policies for Scotland whatsoever. She is totally self seeking and will for sure become an English MP. We will be well rid of the empty vessel.
I have no doubt she has her critics and of course I am not in the cut and thrust of Scots politics as I was when I lived in Edinburgh
Mr. Meeks, that is odd. Whether you like Mogg or not, if he's in the running (in markets, at least) for next PM he should be a potential Chancellor, even if it's a long shot.
Mr. Felix, I forget who, (not Adonis) but one frequent Twitterer compared leaving the EU to the Black Death a week or two ago.
Surely it's precisely because he's seen as a possible leadership contender that there is no way May would promote him directly from the backbencher to so powerful a cabinet post ?
(If we're seriously considering Fox as a possibility, then actual qualification for the post is obviously an irrelevance.)
Yes. The route for Mogg to become Chancellor relies on his making a deal to deliver his followers to a leadership rival in return for the Treasury. So Mogg might be a bet if you can find good odds and do not mind tying your stake up, possibly for years. Of course, you'd also need to know if Mogg even wants the job; you'd feel a bit of a clot if he sells his support in return for becoming Foreign Secretary.
By focusing resources on those who can’t afford it otherwise you are reducing the deadweight cost of supporting those who wold go anyway
If you position it correctly I suspect - for example - a university would choose a kid with a state academic scholarship over a full fee paying kid because it signals they are smart
In practice the rich kid would get the place. Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the chancellor anyway, might like to make a little extra donation.
You can make the source of funding blind at the point of offer.
But I can tell from your second point it is just a question of prejudice
Nope, experience.
“Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the Chancellor anyway...”
Are you saying familial connections with colleges do not exist and do not influence who gets accepted?
They used to in my day (70s-80s) - irrefutable cases of the Snodgrass extension of the college buildings going up the same year as young Tommy Snodgrass matriculated. Nowadays, I doubt it because the admissions procedure tends to be in the hands of a large committee which presumably has a fair old left wing bias, academics being what they are.
Left wingers do nepotism . Arguably they're worse. Look at the Labour Party. If you think bureaucracy and committees can't be influenced, I suspect you're likely to be disappointed.
So as long as you say sorry and cry all is forgiven by Jess Philips - rather different from the line she used for Joby Young. It's a puzzle this morality business. and there was me looking forward to some Yvette Cooper 'outrage' to brighten up a dull week.
Ruth Davidson backs leaving the Customs Union on Peston on Sunday but wants a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU post Brexit
And it will happen
And she knows the Scottish Fishing Industry wants out. Indeed they never wanted in in the first place
Yes, hence the Tories gained seats like Moray from the SNP post Brexit
My wife's home County
Yes and plenty of fishermen there
What a dunderheid, there are a fraction of the fishermen left in Scotland since Tories in Westminster sold them down the river. Been in perpetual decline for a long time.
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students today.
Unless you wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher or academic or senior civil servant very few went to university as few jobs needed graduates.
You could be an accountant or a stockbroker or a middle manager or a journalist with just A Levels, a police officer or nurse with just GCSEs or O Levels, now most of those who do those jobs have degrees.
Teaching required a two year diploma course. OK for most secondary and prinmary. Grammar schools needed degrees for lots of subjects, except I think PE. Old school friend of mine, whom I met up with again about a year ago after 50+ years, said that he’d done very well in banking with O levels.
The old secondary moderns may not have needed full degrees no but grammar schools generally did as you say, the rise of comprehensive education largely coincided with the expansion of university education from the mid to late 1960s on.
The City in the 1980s was certainly full of public schoolboys and Essex boys who never went to university
One of my sons was one of those Essex boys in the late 80’s! Subsequently went to Uni, though.
So as long as you say sorry and cry all is forgiven by Jess Philips - rather different from the line she used for Joby Young. It's a puzzle this morality business. and there was me looking forward to some Yvette Cooper 'outrage' to brighten up a dull week.
I think even students from very rich families would get a partial grant if two or more were in further education at the same time.
I seem to recall the means test was administered with no great level of competence by the local authority. By the time I went to university my father was at quite a respectable altitude in the Foreign Office hierarchy and I got a full grant after his artful and not particularly truthful completion of the paperwork...
So as long as you say sorry and cry all is forgiven by Jess Philips - rather different from the line she used for Joby Young. It's a puzzle this morality business. and there was me looking forward to some Yvette Cooper 'outrage' to brighten up a dull week.
Was that a freudian slip or did you really mean to say jobbie young
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students today.
Unless you wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher or academic or senior civil servant very few went to university as few jobs needed graduates.
You could be an accountant or a stockbroker or a middle manager or a journalist with just A Levels, a police officer or nurse with just GCSEs or O Levels, now most of those who do those jobs have degrees.
Teaching required a two year diploma course. OK for most secondary and prinmary. Grammar schools needed degrees for lots of subjects, except I think PE. Old school friend of mine, whom I met up with again about a year ago after 50+ years, said that he’d done very well in banking with O levels.
The old secondary moderns may not have needed full degrees no but grammar schools generally did as you say, the rise of comprehensive education largely coincided with the expansion of university education from the mid to late 1960s on.
The City in the 1980s was certainly full of public schoolboys and Essex boys who never went to university
One of my sons was one of those Essex boys in the late 80’s! Subsequently went to Uni, though.
Helped no doubt by university expansion
Not really. Went to one established in the 60’s, with an excellent reputation.
Ruth Davidson backs leaving the Customs Union on Peston on Sunday but wants a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU post Brexit
And it will happen
And she knows the Scottish Fishing Industry wants out. Indeed they never wanted in in the first place
Yes, hence the Tories gained seats like Moray from the SNP post Brexit
My wife's home County
Yes and plenty of fishermen there
What a dunderheid, there are a fraction of the fishermen left in Scotland since Tories in Westminster sold them down the river. Been in perpetual decline for a long time.
The EU sold them down the river - that is why they want out
Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
I am going to go with option 3....
The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.
The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.
Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
You misunderstand: in my model the taxpayer would subsidise kids from poor backgrounds to make courses affordable to everyone who justifies a place on them (within the overall spending envelope allocated the government).
If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .
I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.
I got a full grant when I went to Uni in the 1960s. My father had retired the year before (he was 78) so was just on a pension and thus qualified.
Ruth Davidson backs leaving the Customs Union on Peston on Sunday but wants a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU post Brexit
And it will happen
And she knows the Scottish Fishing Industry wants out. Indeed they never wanted in in the first place
She also knows Gove has already said he will give it away to help the city etc. The idiots voting Tory in Moray will get their just desserts. When have Tories ever done anything to help Scotland ever.
Well probably helped to defeat independence. I also see the conservatives gained votes throughout Scotland and many of them are nice conservatives like me !!!!!
G even the nice ones are deluded. The Tories are doing nothing in Scotland. The 13 no-users in Westminster do or say nothing other than parrot the London line. Davidson has been invisible for last 6 months , only ever appears on tame shows , like BBC where she does not get questions. She gets a doing every week on FM's questions and has no policies for Scotland whatsoever. She is totally self seeking and will for sure become an English MP. We will be well rid of the empty vessel.
I have no doubt she has her critics and of course I am not in the cut and thrust of Scots politics as I was when I lived in Edinburgh
G even allowing for my Tory bias, she is a stinker, out for herself and nothing else, a puppet for Westminster.
Ruth Davidson backs leaving the Customs Union on Peston on Sunday but wants a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU post Brexit
And it will happen
And she knows the Scottish Fishing Industry wants out. Indeed they never wanted in in the first place
Yes, hence the Tories gained seats like Moray from the SNP post Brexit
My wife's home County
Yes and plenty of fishermen there
What a dunderheid, there are a fraction of the fishermen left in Scotland since Tories in Westminster sold them down the river. Been in perpetual decline for a long time.
The EU sold them down the river - that is why they want out
G it was Westminster that sold them down the river to suit other policies in England, they were counted as expendable. Very same will happen again and then we will hear them whinging despite their own stupidity.
Fox's career is interesting. Widely seen to be useless, but unflushable. The benefit of friends.
He can't be hounded out of office.
I'll get my coat...
You ain't nothing but a hound dog Been snoopin' 'round the door You ain't nothing but a hound dog Been snoopin' 'round my door You can wag your tail But I ain't gonna feed you no more
You told me you was high-class But I could see through that Yes, you told me you was high-class But I could see through that And daddy, I know You ain't no real cool cat
"What The Actual Fuck! #Marr excuses Cox's behaviour because of what he went through"
Not seen the programme but if true it is odd because:
1. It really doesn't excuse the behaviour & 2. The behaviour preceded his wife's murder.
The point is that the sort of dubious office behaviour that he admits to wouldn't rate media coverage at all except for the fact that he's the husband of an MP who was murdered. Since anyone with any empathy at all feels that must have been rough, it's surely reasonable to cut him some slack and let him sort out his life in private. Surely being related to a victim shouldn't make you fair game for trial by media. Can any of us be absolutely sure we've never said anything that we'd be embarrassed by if we were catapulted into celebrity by the murder of a relative?
So as long as you say sorry and cry all is forgiven by Jess Philips - rather different from the line she used for Joby Young. It's a puzzle this morality business. and there was me looking forward to some Yvette Cooper 'outrage' to brighten up a dull week.
Imagine if subsequent events had been different, today’s headline would be that the husband of an MP had stood down from a charity because of allegations of sexual harrasment.
The key is that the allegations are from when he was married, not from after he was sadly widowed.
So as long as you say sorry and cry all is forgiven by Jess Philips - rather different from the line she used for Joby Young. It's a puzzle this morality business. and there was me looking forward to some Yvette Cooper 'outrage' to brighten up a dull week.
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students today.
Unless you wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher or academic or senior civil servant very few went to university as few jobs needed graduates.
You could be an accountant or a stockbroker or a middle manager or a journalist with just A Levels, a police officer or nurse with just GCSEs or O Levels, now most of those who do those jobs have degrees.
Teaching required a two year diploma course. OK for most secondary and prinmary. Grammar schools needed degrees for lots of subjects, except I think PE. Old school friend of mine, whom I met up with again about a year ago after 50+ years, said that he’d done very well in banking with O levels.
The old secondary moderns may not have needed full degrees no but grammar schools generally did as you say, the rise of comprehensive education largely coincided with the expansion of university education from the mid to late 1960s on.
The City in the 1980s was certainly full of public schoolboys and Essex boys who never went to university
One of my sons was one of those Essex boys in the late 80’s! Subsequently went to Uni, though.
Helped no doubt by university expansion
Not really. Went to one established in the 60’s, with an excellent reputation.
The 60s was the first big period of university expansion, Warwick, York, Sussex, Essex, UEA, Kent etc all founded then
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students today.
Unless you wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher or academic or senior civil servant very few went to university as few jobs needed graduates.
You could be an accountant or a stockbroker or a middle manager or a journalist with just A Levels, a police officer or nurse with just GCSEs or O Levels, now most of those who do those jobs have degrees.
Teaching required a two year diploma course. OK for most secondary and prinmary. Grammar schools needed degrees for lots of subjects, except I think PE. Old school friend of mine, whom I met up with again about a year ago after 50+ years, said that he’d done very well in banking with O levels.
The old secondary moderns may not have needed full degrees no but grammar schools generally did as you say, the rise of comprehensive education largely coincided with the expansion of university education from the mid to late 1960s on.
The City in the 1980s was certainly full of public schoolboys and Essex boys who never went to university
One of my sons was one of those Essex boys in the late 80’s! Subsequently went to Uni, though.
Helped no doubt by university expansion
Not really. Went to one established in the 60’s, with an excellent reputation.
The 60s was the first big period of university expansion, Warwick, York, Sussex, Essex, UEA, Kent etc all founded then
By focusing resources on those who can’t afford it otherwise you are reducing the deadweight cost of supporting those who wold go anyway
If you position it correctly I suspect - for example - a university would choose a kid with a state academic scholarship over a full fee paying kid because it signals they are smart
In practice the rich kid would get the place. Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the chancellor anyway, might like to make a little extra donation.
You can make the source of funding blind at the point of offer.
But I can tell from your second point it is just a question of prejudice
Nope, experience.
“Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the Chancellor anyway...”
Are you saying familial connections with colleges do not exist and do not influence who gets accepted?
"What The Actual Fuck! #Marr excuses Cox's behaviour because of what he went through"
Not seen the programme but if true it is odd because:
1. It really doesn't excuse the behaviour & 2. The behaviour preceded his wife's murder.
The point is that the sort of dubious office behaviour that he admits to wouldn't rate media coverage at all except for the fact that he's the husband of an MP who was murdered. Since anyone with any empathy at all feels that must have been rough, it's surely reasonable to cut him some slack and let him sort out his life in private. Surely being related to a victim shouldn't make you fair game for trial by media. Can any of us be absolutely sure we've never said anything that we'd be embarrassed by if we were catapulted into celebrity by the murder of a relative?
If he was "just" the husband of an MP, surely that would still have been a story?
Personally, I cut a lot of slack to people that own up to past problems which is what he has done.
To say somehow his wife's death relieves him of responsibility if anything is an insult to his sense of agency.
By focusing resources on those who can’t afford it otherwise you are reducing the deadweight cost of supporting those who wold go anyway
If you position it correctly I suspect - for example - a university would choose a kid with a state academic scholarship over a full fee paying kid because it signals they are smart
In practice the rich kid would get the place. Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the chancellor anyway, might like to make a little extra donation.
You can make the source of funding blind at the point of offer.
But I can tell from your second point it is just a question of prejudice
Nope, experience.
“Mummy and Daddy, who probably know the Chancellor anyway...”
Are you saying familial connections with colleges do not exist and do not influence who gets accepted?
More rarely than you suggest
I would say that those with familial connections are better familiar with processes and what to expect, what to say to get in, etc.
Equally those with money can afford better tutors, easier to study when you aren't working during your A levels, etc.
"What The Actual Fuck! #Marr excuses Cox's behaviour because of what he went through"
Not seen the programme but if true it is odd because:
1. It really doesn't excuse the behaviour & 2. The behaviour preceded his wife's murder.
The point is that the sort of dubious office behaviour that he admits to wouldn't rate media coverage at all except for the fact that he's the husband of an MP who was murdered. Since anyone with any empathy at all feels that must have been rough, it's surely reasonable to cut him some slack and let him sort out his life in private. Surely being related to a victim shouldn't make you fair game for trial by media. Can any of us be absolutely sure we've never said anything that we'd be embarrassed by if we were catapulted into celebrity by the murder of a relative?
It is rarely I disagree with you Nick but he has been found out as a sex pest and labour should be focussing on his victims.
The fact that be is an icon of the left does not excuse the collective way they have tried to mitigate the damage caused and his involvement with save the children
The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.
The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.
Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
I agree with that analysis. I think I'll pinch it and add it to "in my opinion". . Hope you don't mind.
We’ll make a Conservative of you yet...
No chance of that! If it wasn't for the ideology, the members and the attitude ... But, as a pragmatist I am open-minded to well argued ideas.
The feature I would add to you suggestion is that in return for a free market in courses and fees I would insist that universities picked up some/most of the cost of means-tested maintenance grants and fees. I would also introduce a free market in student loans with the government as guarantor and collector rather than let the Student Loan Company have a monopoly with exorbitant interest rates.
I’d certainly require universities to have bursary schemes so that no qualified kid can’t go to university for financial reasons - not sure I would put them on the hook for government policy directly as you suggest.
Fine with multiple providers of student loans. No reason why government should actually advance the capital
It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.
Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.
I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.
It's worth remembering that in my cohort (1978), less than 15% of us went to university. Compared to 1970, there are four times as many students today.
Unless you wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher or academic or senior civil servant very few went to university as few jobs needed graduates.
You could be an accountant or a stockbroker or a middle manager or a journalist with just A Levels, a police officer or nurse with just GCSEs or O Levels, now most of those who do those jobs have degrees.
Teaching required a two year diploma course. OK for most secondary and prinmary. Grammar schools needed degrees for lots of subjects, except I think PE. Old school friend of mine, whom I met up with again about a year ago after 50+ years, said that he’d done very well in banking with O levels.
The old secondary moderns may not have needed full degrees no but grammar schools generally did as you say, the rise of comprehensive education largely coincided with the expansion of university education from the mid to late 1960s on.
The City in the 1980s was certainly full of public schoolboys and Essex boys who never went to university
One of my sons was one of those Essex boys in the late 80’s! Subsequently went to Uni, though.
Helped no doubt by university expansion
Not really. Went to one established in the 60’s, with an excellent reputation.
The 60s was the first big period of university expansion, Warwick, York, Sussex, Essex, UEA, Kent etc all founded then
Liam would actually be Theresa's best choice for CoE. He's unwaveringly loyal to her, won't be missed from his current post and will advocate whatever crude 'Willl of the People' Brexit Theresa thinks necessary to keep the ultras on side. How good he'd be at running the nation's finances is another matter, but that's only an academic consideration right now.
Liam would actually be Theresa's best choice for CoE. He's unwaveringly loyal to her, won't be missed from his current post and will advocate whatever crude 'Willl of the People' Brexit Theresa thinks necessary to keep the ultras on side. How good he'd be at running the nation's finances is another matter, but that's only an academic consideration right now.
He will not lead the party - the next leader will be another female
*Apologies - misread your post but he will not be COE either
"What The Actual Fuck! #Marr excuses Cox's behaviour because of what he went through"
Not seen the programme but if true it is odd because:
1. It really doesn't excuse the behaviour & 2. The behaviour preceded his wife's murder.
The point is that the sort of dubious office behaviour that he admits to wouldn't rate media coverage at all except for the fact that he's the husband of an MP who was murdered. Since anyone with any empathy at all feels that must have been rough, it's surely reasonable to cut him some slack and let him sort out his life in private. Surely being related to a victim shouldn't make you fair game for trial by media. Can any of us be absolutely sure we've never said anything that we'd be embarrassed by if we were catapulted into celebrity by the murder of a relative?
It is rarely I disagree with you Nick but he has been found out as a sex pest and labour should be focussing on his victims.
The fact that be is an icon of the left does not excuse the collective way they have tried to mitigate the damage caused and his involvement with save the children
The quote from the Mail site is that once 'It is claimed that Mr Cox drunkenly harassed a female employee at the charity in London, forcing her against a wall outside a bar, holding her by the throat and telling her: 'I want to f*** you.’
Now that is unquestionably an incredibly stupid thing to do and equally unquestionably a resigning matter, but his statement suggests that he’s ashamed of himself.
Comments
Linking fees to graduate earning premium repaid after graduation would also ensure the individual student was still responsible for their actual tuition costs based on what they were likely to earn in future.
But I can tell from your second point it is just a question of prejudice
And she knows the Scottish Fishing Industry wants out. Indeed they never wanted in in the first place
It was a bit difficult for them because my sister’s and my Uni time overlapped.
Trouble was that the tax system encouraged them to take directors fees, but commercial interests required them to use those fees in the business. I worked in the vacations and funded my social life that way.
You could be an accountant or a stockbroker or a middle manager or a journalist with just A Levels, a police officer or nurse with just GCSEs or O Levels, now most of those who do those jobs have degrees.
The feature I would add to you suggestion is that in return for a free market in courses and fees I would insist that universities picked up some/most of the cost of means-tested maintenance grants and fees. I would also introduce a free market in student loans with the government as guarantor and collector rather than let the Student Loan Company have a monopoly with exorbitant interest rates.
Or are we just in a paper chase arms race where job applicants have to have degrees whether it makes sense or not ( eg at a local university where all the admin staff have to have degrees regardless!).
We’re getting kids into debt to get a piece of paper that 40% plus of their age cohort also have - it’s wrong. Better to limit the numbers far more drastically, and have state grants etc for a bigger percentage to allow the able but less well off to go.
Not seen the programme but if true it is odd because:
1. It really doesn't excuse the behaviour
&
2. The behaviour preceded his wife's murder.
Old school friend of mine, whom I met up with again about a year ago after 50+ years, said that he’d done very well in banking with O levels.
Rich families were also able to get the tax benefits from covenants when their children were in further education - thus giving them an incentive to make the parental contribution.
IMHO Labour's continual opposition to means testing puts them way out of whack with the British public's sense of fairness.
The City in the 1980s was certainly full of public schoolboys and Essex boys who never went to university
Have you seen who the Defence Secretary is?
Even in Scotland 38 per cent of voters voted leave - and I expect a lot of those will be Tory voters.
May is now closer to Corbyn on Brexit than she is to JRM and Corbyn is now closer to May on Brexit than he is to Chuka Umunna.
So as long as you say sorry and cry all is forgiven by Jess Philips - rather different from the line she used for Joby Young. It's a puzzle this morality business. and there was me looking forward to some Yvette Cooper 'outrage' to brighten up a dull week.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/ 7
Not great, but not awful either.
Been snoopin' 'round the door
You ain't nothing but a hound dog
Been snoopin' 'round my door
You can wag your tail
But I ain't gonna feed you no more
You told me you was high-class
But I could see through that
Yes, you told me you was high-class
But I could see through that
And daddy, I know
You ain't no real cool cat
The key is that the allegations are from when he was married, not from after he was sadly widowed.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/18/brendan-cox-resigns-from-charities-amid-sexual-assault-claims .
Personally, I cut a lot of slack to people that own up to past problems which is what he has done.
To say somehow his wife's death relieves him of responsibility if anything is an insult to his sense of agency.
Equally those with money can afford better tutors, easier to study when you aren't working during your A levels, etc.
The fact that be is an icon of the left does not excuse the collective way they have tried to mitigate the damage caused and his involvement with save the children
Fine with multiple providers of student loans. No reason why government should actually advance the capital
*Apologies - misread your post but he will not be COE either
Now that is unquestionably an incredibly stupid thing to do and equally unquestionably a resigning matter, but his statement suggests that he’s ashamed of himself.