Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Innovindil]

Just now, toddybad said:

My one possible regret I have is that I did A-levels and uni rather than take up the offer of an apprenticeship (or something similar - part engineering course and half on the job learning) as a CAD designer when I was 16. I'd have been a whole lot better off and no student loan. 

Definitely. I've been told apprenticeships are hard to begin with, reduced pay, usually end up making the tea because you aren't trained to do anything else (some legal issues with age aswell I believe) but in the end it definitely pays off. Work places will always keep decent apprentices on because they've invested so much money into them. 

[katieakita]

5 minutes ago, Captain... said:

It's a good job the Thick of it has finished, how any earth do you satirise this absolute shower. People would be switching off in their droves to watch the Parliament channel.

One of my favourite programs of all time and it could actually be a documentary. had a few dealings with a few MP's and it could be real.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

So you think he should start Uni all over again?  Just send him @Webbo's way, he knows where all the well-paying jobs for guys like him are.  Actually that's a point, wanna hook me up too, Webs?

That's the problem with you youngsters, always want someone to do everything for you.

 

Take responsibility for your own life Carl. If you're not happy you have 2 choices, either change your life or put up with it. If you choose to put up with it that's down to you, don't blame others. I'm not having a go at you Carl, I'd say the same to anyone. I've not made a great success of my life, I'm a massive underachiever but you'll never hear me moaning about it. 

 

 

[David Guiza]

15 minutes ago, Captain... said:

It's a good job the Thick of it has finished, how on earth do you satirise this absolute shower. People would be switching off in their droves to watch the Parliament channel.

Armando Iannucci was saying on Richard Herring's podcast a while back that it just wouldn't work now as the reality is more obscene than fiction.

 

The reports yesterday of May leaning on Labour for policy just reminded me of Nicola Murray backing the soon to be forgotten Tory policy of taking away school meals. In fact, there's a lot of Nicola Murray about Teresa May..  

[Darkon84]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

My one possible regret I have is that I did A-levels and uni rather than take up the offer of an apprenticeship (or something similar - part engineering course and half on the job learning) as a CAD designer when I was 16. I'd have been a whole lot better off and no student loan. 

 

There's a hell of a lot we disagree on, but I'm 100% with you on this. I wanted to do an apprenticeship (or similar), but got coerced in to A levels and Uni which was a waste of my time long term. 

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Because he doesn't want to do it. 

Then he is a bit of a silly bar steward.  It's a shame you think him emblematic of  everybody your age who's struggling though.

 

Just now, Webbo said:

That's the problem with you youngsters, always want someone to do everything for you.

 

Take responsibility for your own life Carl. If you're not happy you have 2 choices, either change your life or put up with it. If you choose to put up with it that's down to you, don't blame others. I'm not having a go at you Carl, I'd say the same to anyone. I've not made a great success of my life, I'm a massive underachiever but you'll never hear me moaning about it. 

Oh I'm well aware, unfortunately the last 2 times I've chosen to take a stand against abusive employers I've ended up out of a job.   Meanwhile those I stood up to carry on living in the lap of luxury and exploiting anyone without the balls to call them out on it.  The system is fvcked and I feel perfectly entitled to complain about it.

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Jesus Christ. Honestly we might as well just do away with the state and just have dog v dog. Why not have personal health insurance like the US? All this line of thinking ever leads to is profit > people. 

 

 

I notice you don't actually say what your problem with such a system is. Just make some random comparison to US healthcare and boom market is very very bad. The point with this would be that universities are directly invested in the fortunes of the students it churns out. At the moment a university is guaranteed 9k, or 9.25k as of September, no matter what the student gets out of it. There is little incentive to give good teaching, to provide a good course etc etc. Under your system, the university is guaranteed an income which then the government gets some of that back but again it makes no difference to the university. So remove the middle man. Create an individual contract with the university and student, it can differ for different courses or different stipulations can be added etc etc, and then the university has a stake in the students future and has every incentive to maximise that persons future. Universities compete to offer the best deals, encourages innovation etc etc. And maybe it will stop them wasting money on irrelevant research to keep a bored academic busy for a bit. 

 

It's amusing that you choose the US healthcare system rather than Switzerland and Singapore for example. Given they work on a free market principle to a greater extent than the US system. US government spends a higher % of GDP on healthcare than we do so it's clear it doesn't work as a free market system. But it's easier than being informed. If you want the healthcare debate then go for it.

 

 

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Trouble is 'the market' never, ever produces the results it promises. The ideology exists as this perfect system which ignores greed, cartels and all the other things that corrupt. Every market in existence has been corrupted. Usually by the very same people proposing them as perfect systems.

 

This just isn't true. It doesn't ignore greed, it openly accepts greed. It says we will use human non-satiation to the benefit of society by saying that if you don't produce for someone else, you can't demand something yourself. So greed leads to cooperation and satisfying the demands of everyone.

The incentive to form a cartel is to reduce competition and artificially inflate prices, probably because prices have been falling. As soon as that cartel forms and prices rise, the price mechanism signals to other entrepreneurs to enter that market to get a slice of those wonderful profits which then brings the price down. Well then a member of the cartel breaks off from the cartel, goes to a buyer to sell to them for less than the cartel price. And the cartel breaks up. A cartel can only be protected by government because they can normally buy into government and lobby for a regulatory 'moat' around them. Government is frankly the biggest creator of monopoly power.

 

I know it's convenient to confuse crony capitalism with the free market but all it shows you to be is misinformed. 

[Captain...]

4 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Armando Iannucci was saying on Richard Herring's podcast a while back that it just wouldn't work now as the reality is more obscene than fiction.

 

The reports yesterday of May leaning on Labour for policy just reminded me of Nicola Murray backing the soon to be forgotten Tory policy of taking away school meals. In fact, there's a lot of Nicola Murray about Teresa May..  

In terms of competence yes, but Nicola Murray at least seemed human.

[Innovindil]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

Then he is a bit of a silly bar steward.  It's a shame you think him emblematic of  everybody your age who's struggling though.

 

Oh I'm well aware, unfortunately the last 2 times I've chosen to take a stand against abusive employers I've ended up out of a job.   Meanwhile those I stood up to carry on living in the lap of luxury and exploiting anyone without the balls to call them out on it.  The system is fvcked and I feel perfectly entitled to complain about it.

Now you see why I'm a bastard to him. 

 

And honestly, I don't think that applies to everyone my age, I understand some people may not have the smarts to aim higher, or may have personal situations that don't enable them to go into further education (that was my circumstances at 16) but there are plenty that have made bad life choices and blame others for their current situation, even though they currently hold all the power needed to progress. 

 

[David Guiza]

3 minutes ago, Captain... said:

In terms of competence yes, but Nicola Murray at least seemed human.

Definitely, I do however look forward to the day that Teresa May is followed around by a giant lamb chop.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

I notice you don't actually say what your problem with such a system is. Just make some random comparison to US healthcare and boom market is very very bad. The point with this would be that universities are directly invested in the fortunes of the students it churns out. At the moment a university is guaranteed 9k, or 9.25k as of September, no matter what the student gets out of it. There is little incentive to give good teaching, to provide a good course etc etc. Under your system, the university is guaranteed an income which then the government gets some of that back but again it makes no difference to the university. So remove the middle man. Create an individual contract with the university and student, it can differ for different courses or different stipulations can be added etc etc, and then the university has a stake in the students future and has every incentive to maximise that persons future. Universities compete to offer the best deals, encourages innovation etc etc. And maybe it will stop them wasting money on irrelevant research to keep a bored academic busy for a bit. 

 

It's amusing that you choose the US healthcare system rather than Switzerland and Singapore for example. Given they work on a free market principle to a greater extent than the US system. US government spends a higher % of GDP on healthcare than we do so it's clear it doesn't work as a free market system. But it's easier than being informed. If you want the healthcare debate then go for it.

 

 

 

This just isn't true. It doesn't ignore greed, it openly accepts greed. It says we will use human non-satiation to the benefit of society by saying that if you don't produce for someone else, you can't demand something yourself. So greed leads to cooperation and satisfying the demands of everyone.

The incentive to form a cartel is to reduce competition and artificially inflate prices, probably because prices have been falling. As soon as that cartel forms and prices rise, the price mechanism signals to other entrepreneurs to enter that market to get a slice of those wonderful profits which then brings the price down. Well then a member of the cartel breaks off from the cartel, goes to a buyer to sell to them for less than the cartel price. And the cartel breaks up. A cartel can only be protected by government because they can normally buy into government and lobby for a regulatory 'moat' around them. Government is frankly the biggest creator of monopoly power.

 

I know it's convenient to confuse crony capitalism with the free market but all it shows you to be is misinformed. 

Could we not introduce pay on results within the current system or, indeed, any other version of the system we wanted to create? It doesn't require a contract between student and uni - a regulatory/legislative contract between government and unis would do the trick!

 

Re your second point, my point is that perfect free markets do not exist as they always become corrupted. 

Edited 11 July 2017 by Guest

[Kopfkino]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Could we not introduce pay on results within the current system or, indeed, any other version of the system we wanted to create? It doesn't require a contract between student and uni - a regulatory/legislative contract between government and unis would do the trick!

 

Re your second point, my point is that perfect free markets do not exist as they always become corrupted. 

Why does the government have to be involved. Why can't the government oversee the enforcement of the contract between the parties actually involved in the transaction. Direct agreements which can vary by student and direct transfers between the two, why does the government need to be involved in any of it, apart from ensuring the contract is upheld?

 

 

They don't exist because of the role of government making them less efficient, creating undesirable outcomes for no actual reason and enabling individuals to have greater power than they would in a perfect free market. But I take your point that you think they corrupt, no more need be said.

[Guest BlueBrett]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Could we not introduce pay on results within the current system or, indeed, any other version of the system we wanted to create? It doesn't require a contract between student and uni - a regulatory/legislative contract between government and unis would do the trick!

 

Re your second point, my point is that perfect free markets do not exist as they always become corrupted. 

No because 'results' are subjective and courses vary massively in terms of how rigorous/challenging they are. You want to get a first from Oxbridge you better work your arse off for the 3 years you are there, be engaged and produce consistently exceptional work. You want one on the 'same course' from some former poly like UWE for instance, all you got to do is get >70% in one double weighted module in your final year. You can't just say a degree's a degree or a first's a first.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, KingGTF said:

Why does the government have to be involved. Why can't the government oversee the enforcement of the contract between the parties actually involved in the transaction. Direct agreements which can vary by student and direct transfers between the two, why does the government need to be involved in any of it, apart from ensuring the contract is upheld?

 

 

They don't exist because of the role of government making them less efficient, creating undesirable outcomes for no actual reason and enabling individuals to have greater power than they would in a perfect free market. But I take your point that you think they corrupt, no more need be said.

The answer is simple. I don't believe that students should be paying the cost of their education. I believe the government should pay for education from taxation. I might accept a 2.5% graduate tax as alluded to earlier, but I fundamentally disagree with you over how education should be funded. Ultimately, there's no closing of the gap between us as it is an ideological gap. 

[Captain...]

7 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

Why does the government have to be involved. Why can't the government oversee the enforcement of the contract between the parties actually involved in the transaction. Direct agreements which can vary by student and direct transfers between the two, why does the government need to be involved in any of it, apart from ensuring the contract is upheld?

 

 

They don't exist because of the role of government making them less efficient, creating undesirable outcomes for no actual reason and enabling individuals to have greater power than they would in a perfect free market. But I take your point that you think they corrupt, no more need be said.

I think there would need to be a minimum funding from the government and maybe some funding redistribution, the risk is the bad universities get worse and the successful ones get better and better. People will not want to go to the crap universities so they will have to cut their fees/payback/offers to attract students, resulting in even less funding so they will lose their good lecturers and researchers replace them with less able produce  a crop of shite graduates and end up going bankrupt.

 

What would be interesting though is how much universities would remain interested in the future careers of their graduates and what resources they could offer to help them post graduation, careers advice, contacts, introductions, coaching for interviews. Being directly invested in their graduates success could forge a much stronger relationship between university and graduate.

Edited 11 July 2017 by Captain...

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The answer is simple. I don't believe that students should be paying the cost of their education. I believe the government should pay for education from taxation. I might accept a 2.5% graduate tax as alluded to earlier, but I fundamentally disagree with you over how education should be funded. Ultimately, there's no closing of the gap between us as it is an ideological gap. 

The problem being that you then think only the wealthy should pay more tax to pay for it, rather than everyone who earns chipping in for things that benefit everyone.

[Guest]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

The problem being that you then think only the wealthy should pay more tax to pay for it, rather than everyone who earns chipping in for things that benefit everyone.

But that just isn't true is it?

Everybody already chips in. 

Those that have the broadest shoulders can pay a little more (only on the portion of their earnings over £80k). It's no different to the current rate of higher rate tax. Or the fact that below a certain amount you don't pay tax. 

Bands already exist.

To be honest, in an ideal world if we had an economy that was flourishing I wouldn't mind having higher earners tax rate brought closer to everybody else. What I object to, however, is that when the economy is in tatters, most cuts are being directed towards the poor. Granted, income tax begins at a higher level now but with cost of living issues it needed raising significantly. At a time of need, an upper tax rate is needed to bring about the changes that are necessary to get things moving again. 

[Kopfkino]

3 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I think there would need to be a minimum funding from the government and maybe some funding redistribution, the risk is the bad universities get worse and the successful ones get better and better. People will not want to go to the crap universities so they will have to cut their fees/payback/offers to attract students, resulting in even less funding so they will lose their good lecturers and researchers replace them with shit and end up going bankrupt.

 

What's the problem with them failing? If they're not providing a satisfactory good/service then why is it necessary for the government (you and I) to keep subsidising them for producing something that isn't desirable. The better staff members get poached by universities that are obviously offering something desirable and they then strengthen further. If you want to avoid disappearing as a uni, create a more desirable offer, make improvements. 

Productivity is down and wages are falling so it's not like sending lots of kids to crappy unis is doing much other than wasting time and money, but maybe if they had incentives to compete and produce better graduates we might solve that problem, idk.

 

[Guest BlueBrett]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

The answer is simple. I don't believe that students should be paying the cost of their education. I believe the government should pay for education from taxation. I might accept a 2.5% graduate tax as alluded to earlier, but I fundamentally disagree with you over how education should be funded. Ultimately, there's no closing of the gap between us as it is an ideological gap. 

Do you think you should be able to study whatever you want at the taxpayer's expense then? What if it's something really niche that you personally find fascinating but has absolute zero value for wider society and wont prepare you to do any actual job? And for how long..indefinitely? What about if you are getting rubbish results all the time, does that matter? Does attendance? Also should the government be making maintenance payments to cover living expenses for everyone studying as well as funding the actual course?

 

Man I'd love to quit my job and go back to uni forever. Just become an absolute polymath doing a bit of this bit of that, carefree knowitall for life. If you're happy to pay for it that's fkin sweet

[Guest Foxin_mad]

43 minutes ago, toddybad said:

My one possible regret I have is that I did A-levels and uni rather than take up the offer of an apprenticeship (or something similar - part engineering course and half on the job learning) as a CAD designer when I was 16. I'd have been a whole lot better off and no student loan. 

Interesting as I have been in a similar position and its seems others on this thread have been too. Perhaps it indicates a situation where too much state intervention at college leads to people being funnelled down a path that isn't best for them and costs a lot more to maintain because of the ideology of a government education system that wants all people to be equal and have a degree, regardless of whether it actually benefits them overall in life at huge cost.

 

I know there is a shortage in tradesmen, I know several local companies looking for good quality apprentices, unfortunately the calibre of person who is not pushed into university is not suited to working in a trade as despite the common misconceptions it is a highly skilled job requiring a decent level of maths and English.  

[Guest BlueBrett]

16 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I think there would need to be a minimum funding from the government and maybe some funding redistribution, the risk is the bad universities get worse and the successful ones get better and better. People will not want to go to the crap universities so they will have to cut their fees/payback/offers to attract students, resulting in even less funding so they will lose their good lecturers and researchers replace them with shit and end up going bankrupt.

 

7 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

What's the problem with them failing? If they're not providing a satisfactory good/service then why is it necessary for the government (you and I) to keep subsidising them for producing something that isn't desirable. The better staff members get poached by universities that are obviously offering something desirable and they then strengthen further. If you want to avoid disappearing as a uni, create a more desirable offer, make improvements. 

Productivity is down and wages are falling so it's not like sending lots of kids to crappy unis is doing much other than wasting time and money, but maybe if they had incentives to compete and produce better graduates we might solve that problem, idk.

 

They wouldn't fail they would just lower their entry requirements and sell their capacity for 3-8 times the amount to wealthy foreign students desperate to study in the UK as a symbol of their status.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

31 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

 

my point is that perfect free markets do not exist as they always become corrupted. 

The same can be said for perfect Socialist environments, they always become corrupted by those in power despite the admirable intentions. Those in power become ego and power driven a syphon all of the wealth of to them and their cronies leaving everyone else poor.

 

Its an unfortunate side effect of basic human nature.

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

15 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But that just isn't true is it?

Everybody already chips in. 

Those that have the broadest shoulders can pay a little more (only on the portion of their earnings over £80k). It's no different to the current rate of higher rate tax. Or the fact that below a certain amount you don't pay tax. 

Bands already exist.

To be honest, in an ideal world if we had an economy that was flourishing I wouldn't mind having higher earners tax rate brought closer to everybody else. What I object to, however, is that when the economy is in tatters, most cuts are being directed towards the poor. Granted, income tax begins at a higher level now but with cost of living issues it needed raising significantly. At a time of need, an upper tax rate is needed to bring about the changes that are necessary to get things moving again. 

Of course most cuts are being aimed towards the poor, the wealthy don't cost much!  And when the Government propose to make cuts to the pension triple lock, and to reform social care funding they lose their majority!

You are asking people who are much more likely to pay for their own medical, education, housing etc and take almost nothing out of the pot to contribute more and more. This is just not sustainable without also making cuts.

Edited 11 July 2017 by Jon the Hat

[Captain...]

4 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

What's the problem with them failing? If they're not providing a satisfactory good/service then why is it necessary for the government (you and I) to keep subsidising them for producing something that isn't desirable. The better staff members get poached by universities that are obviously offering something desirable and they then strengthen further. If you want to avoid disappearing as a uni, create a more desirable offer, make improvements. 

Productivity is down and wages are falling so it's not like sending lots of kids to crappy unis is doing much other than wasting time and money, but maybe if they had incentives to compete and produce better graduates we might solve that problem, idk.

 

I guess it depends on alternatives and whether going to University is going to be the norm for education, we don't want thousands of kids ending up at shit universities. The other  problem will be funds will come in gradually, so a university could start going downhill and get worse and worse over years but still be getting funds from when it was producing good graduates and trading off its reputation. It is all well and good letting universities fail, streamlining the whole system so you have only good strong universities left, but what happens to those kids that have ended up choosing the wrong university and had their careers ruined before they have even started?

 

[Guest]

Honestly stunned by the right wing dogma so many of you have fallen for. This is not what has made our country great. This is the path backwards.