British Politics Thread.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I thought the whole university issue was that the government took away the restrictions on charges. They don't set the charges of a given university, the university itself does. So actually it is the universities themselves being free market capitalists. I don't believe in free education post a-level anyway. It is too expensive to allow every person to attempt to scrape a third in meeja studies from an ex poly before making £17 grand a year as a customer services manager at b&q.

Conversely, the lack of higher education is part of why we're dragging in so many foreign workers. For example, whenever we hire new Acoustic Technicians, they are foreign 90% of the time because no-one locally bothers to study that. The rest of the industry has similar issues, and the NHS is a monument to how studying to be a Doctor is a lot of stress for not an awful lot of benefit.

[Denzark]

There must be a finite point to free education. I think a-level is fine. Anything else is unaffordable. I would subsidise useful degrees - doctors, engineers, etc. Even pay bursaries outright with a guarantee return of service. But I think the country neither needs nor can afford to fund one degree for every one citizen. That would be what- £27k x 70m? I make that £1890000000 every 3 years...

- - - Updated - - -

Ok demographics - about 25% of country is under 19. Actual figure is 63m so at policy start for equality, you would need to fund 47m degrees at up to 27k over 3 years. Only a 1.2 trillion start up figure or have I transposed a 0?

[CoffeeGrunt]

63 million under 19s? There's only 64 million people in the country. Plus it's operating on the assumption that people would qualify for a degree, or even want one.

You could direct it towards what you consider "useful," but that's often viewed through a biased lens. Sure, a doctor or civil engineer is more pragmatic, but a degree in Media Studies could give us the next Edgar Wright or Alfred Hitchcock, a person who puts Britain on the cultural map and exports media to the world to generate income, while advertising Britain for tourism. People often disregard the arts, but they're an essential part of society because people aren't simple machines.

Britain defined itself by innovation. We pioneered so much, invented so much and discovered so much. What do we have now? If we want to do well in the coming years, we need to fuel that spirit of innovation again, it's the only thing that'll save us from ignobility. We can't manufacture on the scale of America, China or even Russia, but we can do quality design innovation if we only nurtured it, and we could do great things with the media and the arts if we only respected them.

[Denzark]

No look again mebbe not clear. 63m start of whom 25% are under 19. Quarter of 63 is about 15.75 so 47 is the remainder. It's very rough but you need to look at 47m people times 27k pounds for fees - to fund a degree for all. Rough like I said

[CoffeeGrunt]

Well no, because you're including newborns which means it doesn't add up. You're treating it as a singular payment, rather than a continual upkeep.
The actual cost would be whoever is 19 each year, and even then it's whatever proportion of that age group is eligible, willing, and has achieved the necessary grades. This also means the cost will alter as Uni fees do each year.

Plus due to our aging population, [URL="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop-estimate/population-estimates-for-uk--england-and-wales--scotland-and-northern-ireland/mid-2014/sty---overview-of-the-uk-population.html"]that percentage is set to decline[/URL].

This means that due to people living longer, that investment lasts longer, we'll have to pay less each year due to the steady decrease in young'uns in terms of the overall population, and the youth will be better equipped to earn the money to keep the economy afloat and allow the older population to retire.

[Mr Mystery]

You're also labouring under the misapprehension that everyone is capable of getting the grades necessary for University, and that they all have the same desire to go on to Univeristy.

But nice attempt to rubbish it with hokey figures and 'absolute worst case scenario' illustration.

Seemingly, [url=http://fullfact.org/education/are-there-record-numbers-young-people-going-university/]225,000 students were accepted on full-time Uni courses in 2014.[/url]

225,000 X 27,000 = £6,075,000 to get them all through Uni without a mountain of debt. In the grand scheme of things, that's a bloody bargain, [url=http://www.statista.com/statistics/281744/gdp-of-the-united-kingdom-uk-since-2000/]when compared to our GDP[/url].

It's an investment in our future. It's removing as many barriers as possible, so those with the aptitude can thrive as well as they might.

Typically, University Graduates earn more over their lifetime - which means more moolah for HMRC...see, that's long term politics. And that's not just PAYE tax. It's your VAT. It's your Road Tax. It's your council tax. All of it. Not to mention it can help to end cycles of poverty, not just for the individual, but communities. See trash TV like 'Benefits Street'? What sort of difference would it make to that sort of community to see even a single person they know work up from nothing, and not be dependant on state hand outs? You're a proud right winger. Surely you'd rather see your tax money spent on a project with eventual returns, than simply pissed up the wall?

It makes sense. It's morally correct. So why the hell are we charging for it? Why are we consciously trapping people in poverty?

[Mr Mystery]

Same goes for social housing.

Right now, there are few social homes around. We've got nowhere near enough.

And how is the gap filled? Private Landlords, who until recently were able to charge 'think of a number' rents. All picked up by the tax payer.

This of course makes 'buy-to-let' even more attractive, as if you accept social tenant, your rent is largely guaranteed.

This places a burden on the benefits bill, driving up rent costs ever higher.

But if we came to our sense, told the NIMBY brigade to STFU and invested in house building programmes, social tenants can be put up in proper social housing - and as private landlords will then be forced to only charge what the market will bear, rents may fall, discouraging further buy-to-let greed, causing house price inflation to stop being stupid.

As I've said before, Right To Buy was a good idea. Just the execution left a lot to be desired. A home owner is inherently more invested in the economy, so more likely to be in work and to seek ever higher wages. But because it was flogged off and not replaced, it was a one trick pony, and now we're suffering from it.

[Denzark]

When the government budgets for something, it has to account for the worst possible case scenario. Same as expensive cancer drugs, they look at maximum possible uptake. If a policy of 'free degrees for all' was announced then that's the maximum cost. One per every citizen of age. Actually I did not correlate ability to get grades or the amount of people who would die in the interim before completing degrees. But neither did I take into account the additional infrastructure, extra lecturers, classrooms, labs, etc etc. You have to draw the line somewhere with education. Saying 'free degrees for all' is pure socialist clap trap that highlights a truism I think Margaret Thatcher said: "the trouble with socialism is you run out of other people's money to spend". Looks like social housing will be more available if freedom of movement from the EU is modified, but that's a different story. Btw I would support 'a degree for all' if I thought the financial backing was there- but I can't see anyway it is.

[Psychosplodge]

Four more have resigned this morning. I doubt they're all blarites I'd assume Corbyn had some of his own people in he shadow cabinet?

regarding higher education. Just make the useful degrees free. Anything that gives you a bsc, a beng or the likes fully funded. The ones that award a ba? Someone needs to sit and make a sensible decision. There is no way we need a 1000+ sociology/business studies graduates a year - all we're doing is raising the entry requirements of pushing shopping trolleys.

[Denzark]

A good point - equality of opportunity does not need to be acheived by dragging everyone down to a poor standard (of living, wages, etc). If everyone had one of something* it devalues it.



*Obviously not including the essentials for life - water, oxygen, food, shelter.