Politics Thread!

[pogo]

The recession wasn’t caused by public spending, though in one sense it made it worse: the high level of spending and borrowing prolonged the boom and fed especially into the housing market (British people being fond of investing in bricks and mortar) and mortgages, so the eventual inevitable crash was greater.

What the recession did was starkly highlight the deficit: instead of going into the recession with a surplus so we could raise spending an cut taxes to cushion the effects of the downturn we entered the recession with a high deficit, so could not afford tax cuts and spending: instead taxes had to go up and spending had to be cut. If we hadn't done so – if we had ignored the deficit or been unable to address it – we would sooner or later found it harder to borrow. And in a self-reinforcing process it would have become more and more expensive until we were forced to go begging to the IMF and have cuts imposed on us.

How much and how quickly to cut is a very tricky question. Too much too soon and we'll do real damage, as in much of Europe. But the economy is growing and unemployment falling. It would be doing much better but for the recession in most of Europe and the slowdown in the rest of the world, but there's not much we can do about that.

[seibu]

We may yet go begging to the IMF. The outcome of the recession / depression would be the same under Labour or the Tories because their overall economic policies are identical. The only difference with the Tories is that they have successfully used it as an excuse to dismantle the NHS and privatise higher education.

[merman]

We are getting cuts in services but not real term savings in departmental spending. So not only are we suffering "austerity for our own good", it isn't working.

Oh and the deficit has actually grown since the Coalition took over. So they haven't achieved that either.

[pogo]

We may yet go begging to the IMF. The outcome of the recession / depression would be the same under Labour or the Tories because their overall economic policies are identical. The only difference with the Tories is that they have successfully used it as an excuse to dismantle the NHS and privatise higher education.

Dismantle the NHS? Last time I checked it was still there. As for privatising higher education tuition fees was a Labour policy.

I don't see us going begging to the IMF, not least as the IMF has its hands full already and may be less helpful than last time. Instead if the government loses its AAA rating (which many expect this year) borrowing costs could rise and the pound fall. Normally the pound falling is such circumstances would be good thing: in the early 1990s after we were kicked out of the ERM the drop in the pound set the stage for recovery. But with the rest of the world economy struggling it's more difficult to see it helping, or where growth will come from.

[Wudzi]

As for privatising higher education tuition fees was a Labour policy.

Although tuition fees were introduced under the '97 Labour government, it was off the back of work by the Major government that started the ball rolling. It was also under the Tories that tuition fees trebled immediately.

In either case, it's not the same thing as privatisation. That's purely something that David Willetts has been trying to push through.

[seibu]

Dismantle the NHS? Last time I checked it was still there. As for privatising higher education tuition fees was a Labour policy.

I think you're right about higher education. I think privatisation was coming under Labour or the Tories. And I do think the current system is privatised, because as of 2011 the government no longer contributes to funding the vast majority of degree courses. I don't agree with this BTW and I don't see myself as a Labour fanboy! I think that in every meaningful way Labour and Conservative are now the same party.

With respect to the NHS, it is being privatised by stealth. That's not a paranoid fantasy:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... ivate.html

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 077250.ece

http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2012/11/20/kai ... ing-board/
^^
"NHS South West Essex has circulated a list of 213 treatments for which general practitioners can no longer refer."

http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2012/11/t ... f-nhs.html

I don't think this would have happened under Labour, so I think NHS privatisation is a rare genuine policy difference between the two parties. Of course the Tories wouldn't be so stupid as to publicly state their NHS plans to the electorate.

[k345y]

Tories are bastards.


Fuck them.


So endeth my ideology.

[merman]

Head teachers don't want A Levels to go back to being an all or nothing final exams. Top universities including Oxford and Cambridge don't want the change either. But Gove is pressing ahead with it. Even dafter is the fact that Wales and Northern Ireland could opt out, further fragmenting the system.

[Dio]

Interestingly, this is one of the exceedingly rare places my brother is actually supporting the government (in principle, at least) as he reckons that modular teaching isn't really teaching at all.

He certainly accepts that a final exam system is far from ideal, in that it does mean that students who cope well with exam pressure will do much better than those who fold under it. But in his opinion the modular system allows far too much dependence on cramming and other methods of gaming the exam system, and in the second year the kids have forgotten too much of the groundwork from the first.

[Mayhem]

He certainly accepts that a final exam system is far from ideal, in that it does mean that students who cope well with exam pressure will do much better than those who fold under it. But in his opinion the modular system allows far too much dependence on cramming and other methods of gaming the exam system, and in the second year the kids have forgotten too much of the groundwork from the first.

^ this, and I completely agree. It's seem to be about learning enough in a short space of time to pass the exam, and not actually understand the material.

[Little stoned kiwi]

New Zealand moved from end of year exams to modular assessment donkey's years ago; designed so that all kids can 'pass'. There was even a high-school that put students in a special class to cram on their failed modules and take the assessment the same day.
At polytech the only way you can fail is to not turn up.

It confuses employers to no end. They still look for qualifications on CVs, but can't determine what ones have value. My brother recently had to take a level 5 (tertiary) English paper for his certificate to train construction students. Having dropped out of school at 15 to take up carpet laying he's only read two books in his life, I read both of them before the age of 12. His manager at the firm he works for did the course work for him.
There's a lot of money to be made in the 'education' sector. The government built a juggernaught on tax payer and borrowed student money it is now trying to cash up through privatisation.

I find this thread depressing. There are so many parallels to what's happening this side of the world. But I suppose being taken up the arse while holding your ankles is the same experience regardless of where it's happening.

[zip accident]

It confuses employers to no end. They still look for qualifications on CVs, but can't determine what ones have value.

This is capitalism. The certificates have the values that the students (or whoever) paid for them. Expecting them to have any other value is anti-capitalist, so don't do that.

[merman]

Interestingly, this is one of the exceedingly rare places my brother is actually supporting the government (in principle, at least) as he reckons that modular teaching isn't really teaching at all.

He certainly accepts that a final exam system is far from ideal, in that it does mean that students who cope well with exam pressure will do much better than those who fold under it. But in his opinion the modular system allows far too much dependence on cramming and other methods of gaming the exam system, and in the second year the kids have forgotten too much of the groundwork from the first.

But the other side of the coin is the stress that a final exam places on students. Sitting behind one of the smartest kids in my class for a GCSE maths exam, even before it started he turned white, called the teacher over and was allowed to leave the exam to be copiously sick in the corridor and toilets. "Teaching to the test" is nothing new, and learning by rote is still not the same as understanding.

[Dio]

As I said, my brother clearly understands those disadvantages, but he'd rather turn out kids who've actually learned some chemistry along the way. Or, at least, more.

[VNVObit]

Interestingly, this is one of the exceedingly rare places my brother is actually supporting the government (in principle, at least) as he reckons that modular teaching isn't really teaching at all.

He certainly accepts that a final exam system is far from ideal, in that it does mean that students who cope well with exam pressure will do much better than those who fold under it. But in his opinion the modular system allows far too much dependence on cramming and other methods of gaming the exam system, and in the second year the kids have forgotten too much of the groundwork from the first.

But the other side of the coin is the stress that a final exam places on students. Sitting behind one of the smartest kids in my class for a GCSE maths exam, even before it started he turned white, called the teacher over and was allowed to leave the exam to be copiously sick in the corridor and toilets. "Teaching to the test" is nothing new, and learning by rote is still not the same as understanding.

Teaching to the test will happen whether it's modular or not.
Having been through both systems (final test only for Leaving and professional exams, modular with final test for postgraduate stuff) they both have pros and cons. That said the final test one is more relevant to real life as we experience more all or nothing events in our working lives (e.g. job interviews) so there is something to be said to getting people ready for that.

I do remember a newspaper article regarding performance at second level and third level exams in Ireland. Essentially it boiled down to those who learnt by rote could get by in second level but would do worse at third as the focus of exams moved away from regurgitation to application of knowledge. (sorry don't have any link for this) personally believe the testing of application is a better system than testing memory