Politics Thread!

[(o)(o)]

The current government has been and is being very honest about our economic situation...

[(o)(o)]

[gravy]

Calm down lol

It DOES mean something

Brown has apologised without shifting blame and all those other issues

[edit : first you say" mea culpa " then 'it meant nothing" shoulda guessed i was being trolled]

Mea culpa just means "I fucked up", it's got no bearing on sincerity.

None of their apologies hold water because they're forced by the focus on the fuck up, not the fuck up itself.

You said you hand't even seen a rhetorical apology from Cameron and then you link to a thread where you're discussing a rhetorical apology from Cameron.

You probably need a lie down or something

[(o)(o)]

Calm down lol

It DOES mean something

Brown has apologised without shifting blame and all those other issues

[edit : first you say" mea culpa " then 'it meant nothing" shoulda guessed i was being trolled]

Mea culpa just means "I fucked up", it's got no bearing on sincerity.

OK

You said you hand't even seen a rhetorical apology from Cameron and then you link to a thread where you're discussing a rhetorical apology from Cameron.

You probably need a lie down or something

You must have misread what I said which was :

"I've ONLY evver seen Cameron admit to error FOR rhetoric purposes."

Come on pogo let's hear you..

[gravy]

Yeah I did, sorry my bad

ACTUAL PROPER APOLOGY

[(o)(o)]

Yeah I did, sorry my bad

ACTUAL PROPER APOLOGY

You'll never make a politician..

BTW Browns apology for "bigoted woman" statement..

Initial response seemed fair enough.. but when it comes to fakery he can't do convincing

He's clearly forcing himself to smile here it looks RIDICULOUS

[merman]

Rifkind only jumped because his constituency party were going to de-select him on Thursday.

Fed up of politicians referring to the expenses scandal in the past tense - IT'S STILL HAPPENING.

It's also why we needed a strong recall law, not the wishy-washy version that passed.

[pogo]

So the last quarterly immigration report is in, and where to start? Net migration is at it’s highest level since 2005. It’s higher than at the start of this parliament. It is increasing at its greatest rate since 2004 when current records began. It’s largely due to people migrating for work reasons, because the economy is doing so well, which means it’s overwhelmingly positive, as people coming here to work boost economic activity both as workers and consumers. As long as they’re not coming faster than we can accommodate them but there’s no sign of that – unemployment is low and falling.

Apart from workers most of the rest are students who if anything contribute even more unambiguously, as they just come here and pay into the economy, paying rent, buying food and especially each paying typically tens of thousands of pounds into our university system.

Terribly embarrassing for the government who committed to getting net migration down to the “tens of thousands”, i.e. under 100,000. It has instead risen to three times that. It looked like a foolish pledge at the time and looks even sillier now; the main mover of immigration is the economy and if the government did their job and fixed the economy it would boost immigration, as happened. Plus it was especially stupid to target “net” migration, as the difference between immigration and emigration it is very hard to target directly.

[zip accident]

Saw this, via /., and thought I sort of knew that without really thinging that much about it, and maybe I should think some more.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/ ... ants_.html

Everyone Wants You To Have Security, But Not from Them

[pogo]

More disastrous policies, this time from Labour.

Labour pledges £6,000 tuition fees

Because, er, ‘The rising level of student debt has been a "disaster"’. The sort of disaster that has seen record numbers of students from poor backgrounds attend university. Obviously Labour can’t tolerate that, a policy that genuinely helps the poor. The way student debt works is you only need to repay it once you earn £21,000 or more. Those who after graduating are still poor get a free education. So it’s very progressive as it is.

So if not the poor who would Labour’s policy help? The middle class, especially the upper middle class, who are the main beneficiaries of subsidised higher education. It is redistribution, as he intends to raid higher earners’ pensions to pay for it. It’s just not redistribution to anyone who actually needs it. It could even hurt students if not fully funded as that would force universities to make cuts.

[gravy]

I thought the number of students enrolling went up hugely under labour and was sliding since the condems introduced tuition fees.

CBA to google it though

[pogo]

From the BBC article

University heads have also argued that the increase in tuition fees to £9,000 has not deterred applications from poorer students, instead the numbers of poorer students have risen.

I think there was a fall when £9000 fees started but it quickly reverted to trend and was mostly the result of students starting a year earlier to avoid the rise.

[merman]

More disastrous policies, this time from Labour.

Labour pledges £6,000 tuition fees

Because, er, ‘The rising level of student debt has been a "disaster"’. The sort of disaster that has seen record numbers of students from poor backgrounds attend university. Obviously Labour can’t tolerate that, a policy that genuinely helps the poor. The way student debt works is you only need to repay it once you earn £21,000 or more. Those who after graduating are still poor get a free education. So it’s very progressive as it is.

So if not the poor who would Labour’s policy help? The middle class, especially the upper middle class, who are the main beneficiaries of subsidised higher education. It is redistribution, as he intends to raid higher earners’ pensions to pay for it. It’s just not redistribution to anyone who actually needs it. It could even hurt students if not fully funded as that would force universities to make cuts.

There is NO EVIDENCE higher tuition fees improved the quality of university education, or filled the skills gap the economy needed. And it's not a policy that helps the poor.

Labour are not only reducing the tuition fees (a real burden) but offering higher maintenance grants - an issue this government bungled badly. When tuition fees went up, there should have been more bursaries and scholarships to help students from poorer backgrounds. What has happened? The percentage of pupils from state secondary schools getting to Oxford and Cambridge has dropped. That's guaranteed industry and politics will continued to be filled with chinless wonders from public school who take PPE as it's a bit of a laugh.

[pogo]

Higher fees pay for education. The alternative is more taxpayer funding, so a larger subsidy to the middle class, or much less education so fewer students.

E.g. I’m old enough that I went to university when there were no tuition fees and because my parents weren’t rich I benefitted from almost full maintenance grants. This was a great system for those who could take advantage of it; problem was there were far fewer of us. There were fewer university places, fewer universities (this was before polytechnics were promoted to parity with traditional universities), fewer course choices.

The system now is far better as far more people benefit from a university education. This is both more just and better for the UK economically. Paying for them just through taxation, as when I was at university, would be unaffordable and unjustifiable as a middle class subsidy. So better off students are expected to pay, which makes sense as they are the main beneficiaries. Only better off as loan repayments aren’t expected from the lowest paid and are eventually forgiven for them.

Exactly what level fees should be at, so how much is paid by students and how much is subsidy, is a political decision. If Ed Miliband thinks students are more deserving than the unemployed, or the old, then he can make subsidising them more a commitment. But I think it’s the wrong policy. Worst he may find it hard to raise the revenue needed and so it may be universities who foot the bill, forcing them to make cuts to courses or places.

[gravy]

The thing that hugely grew university attendance isn't the current system though, it's the one that Labour put in place.

And Milliband is advocating a move back towards that system the effects of which you're praising while rubbishing the path that brought it about.