I don't take part in this calling each other Tories nonsense, whether it's against lefties or the red Tory stuff. You should vote for who you think is best.This is why any vote for Starmer's Labour is essentially pointless. Great, we get rid of the Tories for the immediate short term future but they're just going to be back again in 5-10 years.
We're stuck in a cycle of the Tories looting the country for a decade or so, people getting sick and voting in Labour for a short while, and then going right back to the looting when people have forgotten. And what is Starmer offering to change this? But apparently you're a Tory if you don't think voting for this cycle to continue is a good idea
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
If, if, if, is basically his only argument.
This is a left-wing stance that suits the Tories. If he really thinks this way he is delluded.
I think this is the issue in a nutshell.
Something something he's just doing it to make Labour more electable.
What exactly is the point of starmer at this point?
I was thinking I bet this guy is a Russian shill and then he literally runs defence for Russian interference in UK politics.They fecking murdered people on our soil FFS! Get your head out of your arse
To deplete the will to live of everyone under the age of 45.
Or, if you were hoping for a serious attempt at an answer then I guess it's conservativism without the Conservative Party. The idea that voter's issues with the Tories is not about policy but sleaze.
Which is why is his polls are worsening considerably now that the media is less interested in covering Tory scandals.
I've never understood why politicians are promising to abolish tuition fees, do people really expect a University education for free? A better bet would be to look at reducing them or improving the terms of loans.
Why not? That's exactly what the people who introduced and progressively increased University tuition experienced and what many European countries still offer.
I don't think it's that drastic. Regardless if he never had any intention of doing so, he shouldn't have pledged it imo.
I agree he should never have made that pledge unless he actually looked at whether it would be possible. Aren't UK universities now struggling with the lack of overseas students who pay the higher fees and therefore a reduction from the current amount to free would have huge implications for some institutions. From a quick look, a number of the European countries charge but they are lower than the UK fee with a few charging nothing e.g Germany.
He must have canceled more policies than he's actively proposing at this point. It's like he's in battle with his former self.
I happen to be against fee tuition in it's entirety but if you're cancelling it then you need to propose an extension of grants for those who struggle to afford it. Can't see where they've offered an alternative?
I happen to be against fee tuition in it's entirety but if you're cancelling it then you need to propose an extension of grants for those who struggle to afford it. Can't see where they've offered an alternative?
You don't need to go to Germany, just North of the border.
If you are from anywhere else in the UK aside from Scotland, you have to pay the full fees which is £9,250. So anyone from England studying in Scotland would pay the full fees.
I know, regrettably. The point I was making isn't that you needn't go outwith the UK to find a country offering free at the point of use University education up to Batchelors (and, in some cases, Masters level).
It used to be
Oh I know that but alot of stuff used to be cheaper. Things have changed. I would be very surprised if they are abolished, it would have a massive impact on the University sector. The best you could hope for is a reduction. I wish politicians would just stop making firm commitments until they've actually costed them out and looked into them.
Things change at the whim of politicians, they can change back just as easily if the will to implement it is there.
It's not as simple as that though is it, To reduce the fee from the current amount to £0 would have a massive impact on Universities. Who is going to make up the funding? That's why its a stupid promise to make, greater grants, change of the loan policy or a reduction in fees would have been better.
You’d increase places, especially for the courses with relatively low ‘face-to-face’ time for lectures etc which would improve the coffers.
Also look to increase foreign placements as they’re often the most expensive revenue streams for Universities.
But likewise you’d have lots of issues relative to that:
- increasing pay for lecturers etc due to increased workloads
- increasing support for foreign students with grants etc (or even letting them in the country to start with, given our current Home Office!)
The problem is these have been reducing which has impacted the returns for Universities as these paying the bigger fees. This is probably mainly due to the way we treat foreign people e.g Brexit, migrant stuff.
At the very least they could make it so that student loan interest has a flat rate or isn't a thing. The base rate hikes are extending the life of loans, and those earning on the lower end of the payment requirement are just going to see payslip repayments cannibalised by the interest.
They could make repayments from your wages before tax is taken rather than after. Especially since the repayments are calculated on your pre-tax wages.
I don't expect abolishion of fees etc, but they could make it less draining.
They could make repayments from your wages before tax is taken rather than after. Especially since the repayments are calculated on your pre-tax wages.
I don't expect abolishion of fees etc, but they could make it less draining.
Everything used to be cheaper. The cost per patient in the NHS has and will continue to increase at a far greater rate than the cost of tuition. It doesn't mean we should abandon the principle of universal healthcare though.
We look at things backwards in this country. We focus far too much on short term costs rather than long term gains.
Universities already have no money because the fees have not increased in the past decade.
If something (healthcare, education, defence) is deemed to be a public good, then it is generally paid for through taxation and an acceptance that the money spent will benefit the country.
More money for the health service should mean a healthier country, and this would mean fewer people on sick leave from work, and more tax revenues in the long run.
If the UK is serious about HE being a necessary stepping stone for a high skilled economy, then surely the cost of paying for it will in turn by recouped by better paid workers and higher tax revenues.
If something (healthcare, education, defence) is deemed to be a public good, then it is generally paid for through taxation and an acceptance that the money spent will benefit the country.
More money for the health service should mean a healthier country, and this would mean fewer people on sick leave from work, and more tax revenues in the long run.
If the UK is serious about HE being a necessary stepping stone for a high skilled economy, then surely the cost of paying for it will in turn by recouped by better paid workers and higher tax revenues.
It's not about looking backwards, it's about having a sound financial plan. There are severe economic problems at the moment, we can't even get stuff like universal healthcare right at the moment, waiting lists, treatment times etc. Removing tuition fees would be a vote winner with young people but clearly its not possible financially at the moment for one reason or another.
Why is it not possible financially? The Government can spend whatever they want. The main limiting factor would be the need to control inflation but abolishing tuition fees is not going to make that worse.
A sound financial plan focuses on long term gains. A government can easily address problems "at the moment" and offset the cost to do so with future growth. Unless they don't plan on growth, just syphoning off what they can until the next person takes over.
Erm how about the debt the country is in? Who is going to replace the income lost from the fees? How do you sell that as a financial plan to the electorate without sounding like you are trying to get money from the magic money tree?
I don't think its as simple as that. I mean don't get me wrong, we have a shitshow of a government with the wrong priorities but we have high national debt from the past few years and that isn't going to magically go away.
Short term debt goes away when you pay it off with long term profit
Starmer claims 'vast majority' of his Labour leadership pledges still stand
In his Today interview Keir Starmer said he was no longer committed to the promise to abolish tuition fees that he made when standing for the Labour leadership because “we are in a different economic situation”.
But he claimed the “vast majority” of the promises he made in that contest, most famously set out in a list of 10 pledges, still applied. He told Today’s Justin Webb:
In his Today interview Keir Starmer said he was no longer committed to the promise to abolish tuition fees that he made when standing for the Labour leadership because “we are in a different economic situation”.
But he claimed the “vast majority” of the promises he made in that contest, most famously set out in a list of 10 pledges, still applied. He told Today’s Justin Webb:
We have amassed a massive amount of debt during covid and all the grants that have been given out. Our GDP is one of the slowest growing, we've shot ourselves with Brexit. You are simply not going to make it 'go away' just like that
You don't make it go away by shooting yourself in the foot either. There are two ways to clear that debt. Austerity or growth. You don't get growth without investment.
I'm not voting for Labour whilst he's there.
And what are your plans for investment? Shifting the debt is going to take a very long time, the Tories have screwed the economy, if Labour get in, the first task will be the cost of living crisis, NHS etc. You going to need a huge level of investment just to make the slightest difference.
See, this is precisely the problem. We have politicians who continually talk about our economics and Government spending like it's a household budget. It's nonsense and all it does is lay the groundwork for more austerity whilst the population largely remains compliant to it all. We have a smaller debt to GDP ratio than the United States and Japan's is like three times higher. The Government has been in debt for all of our life times. Historically speaking, our debt isn't even worryingly high.