Clegg

[trousers]

The new arrangements are not saving the current Government any money at all.

 

Did they do it to make savings per se or just to make it fairer to the average UK taxpayer? (I've no idea btw)

[capitalsaint]

It's a reduction in the rate of borrowing.

[pap]

I think Saintandy666 has a point:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/loans/9558187/Martin-Lewis-Its-time-to-stop-calling-student-loans-debts.html

 

That article is hardly fair, is it?

 

Why don't they do a comparison of say, the burden on the student in 2012 with those that got their degrees in 1982?

[Saintandy666]

That article is hardly fair, is it?

 

Why don't they do a comparison of say, the burden on the student in 2012 with those that got their degrees in 1982?

 

Well, there is no burden in terms of tuition fees why you are at university and afterwards its all based on how much you earn. And 1982 was a totally different era in terms of number of universities and how many people went.

 

And why are we suddenly comparing 2012 to 1982. You said the Lib Dems had tripled the burden from the last system...

[Smirking_Saint]

Why do students always want something for nothing ?

[pap]

Well, there is no burden in terms of tuition fees why you are at university and afterwards its all based on how much you earn. And 1982 was a totally different era in terms of number of universities and how many people went.

 

And why are we suddenly comparing 2012 to 1982. You said the Lib Dems had tripled the burden from the last system...

 

I didn't get to go to Uni in the land of full grant student heaven, Andy - but I did attend during the transition era. The grant got smaller every year, but Hampshire County Council covered both that and the tuition fees. That was back in the day when this country thought it was a good idea to educate its citizens.

 

We can start a lot later than 1982 if we're just talking tuition fees, but I wanted to hit a date when students had the lot; full grant, free tuition and all the discounts they can eat. A lot of people in Parliament were given money to go to University. Almost none of them had to pay tuition fees, if any at all.

 

I'm sick and tired of the argument that you only start paying it back when you earn £21K. For starters, £21K is not a big salary - less than the national average, and not nearly enough to do anything sensible like get yourself on the property ladder. Second, salary threshold or not, it still implicitly creates a two-tier system. Even if the generous repayment terms only kick in when you hit that magic £21K figure, a poor student still has to pay it back. A rich student probably won't have that burden, as their parents will sensibly pay it up front. It is still debt, and debt will be a deterrent to some. Let's not pretend otherwise.

[pap]

The Guardian's Steve Bell ( cartoonist ) with his observations on the Lib Dems.

 

"The Lib Dems are in a death spiral"

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/sep/26/lib-dems-steve-bell-conference-video

[Saintandy666]

I didn't get to go to Uni in the land of full grant student heaven, Andy - but I did attend during the transition era. The grant got smaller every year, but Hampshire County Council covered both that and the tuition fees. That was back in the day when this country thought it was a good idea to educate its citizens.

 

We can start a lot later than 1982 if we're just talking tuition fees, but I wanted to hit a date when students had the lot; full grant, free tuition and all the discounts they can eat. A lot of people in Parliament were given money to go to University. Almost none of them had to pay tuition fees, if any at all.

 

I'm sick and tired of the argument that you only start paying it back when you earn £21K. For starters, £21K is not a big salary - less than the national average, and not nearly enough to do anything sensible like get yourself on the property ladder. Second, salary threshold or not, it still implicitly creates a two-tier system. Even if the generous repayment terms only kick in when you hit that magic £21K figure, a poor student still has to pay it back. A rich student probably won't have that burden, as their parents will sensibly pay it up front. It is still debt, and debt will be a deterrent to some. Let's not pretend otherwise.

 

Yes, I know that... but paying it back 9% over 21k is not life limiting. It's basically a graduate tax.

 

As someone who is starting Uni on Sunday, it isn't tuition fee loans/payback of it that I am worried about at all. The main issue is living costs. I get a maintenance loan of £3575 each year. Guess how much my accommodation costs each year... about 3500. And I can tell you now that my accommodation is probably the cheapest of all my friends. Now I'm quite lucky that I had grandparents who have put aside a small amount of money each month since I was born which will get me through uni fine, but just imagine if I didn't have that support... I simply wouldn't be able to afford to go. Because I'm from a middle class background, I get the bare minimum help from the government which if I was at a different uni wouldn't even cover accommodation.

 

I know it is 'first world problems' and all that, but its worth thinking about. The problem with higher education in this country isn't tuition fees(though I'd like to see a graduate tax), it's the rubbish amount of support available to middle class families.

 

And the full funding stuff comes from a different era, before Labours ridiculous 50% target. You can't introduce targets for this kind of thing. Everyone who needs to go should be able to go, but University isn't right for everyone and there are plenty of other equally respectable paths to take.

[Wade Garrett]

You might not be wrong that he is done, although I still don't sense any real appetite to get rid of him from Lib Dem members, as the feeling is we will get battered no matter who is leader. And that may be so, but that doesn't mean that the Liberal Democrats can't hold their head high for the achievements that have happened, for example the income tac allowance, and the pupil premium, and just this week with Vince Cables investment bank. However, all of this will of course be overshadowed by those policies which are more conservative in nature, but which have been lumbered on Clegg as if he would have done it if he were in a majority government. Much of the Liberal Democrats unpopularity stems, in my opinion, from peoples inability to understand coalition. Though even on some of the losses, like Tuition Fees and the NHS, I feel that the outcome was a lot better thanks to Liberal soothing of Tory right wing policy.

 

And just as a side note, I met Clegg earlier this year and he came across as a very decent man genuinely interested in what people had to say. I liked him a lot.

 

Now for a tangent, based on Pap's assessment of tuition fees policy! Just think of what might have happened to tuition fees if this was a pure conservative government. The tories were signed up to the Browne report, which recommended lifting the cap entirely on fees with the likely result it would be 12k. And that might be 12k without the generous repayment scheme currently in place. There is much I disagree with the policy, but to say the new system triples the burden on undergraduates(such as me from next week!) is utterly wrong. For it to be correct, they would be having to pay it all back 3 times quicker. Infact, under the new system you don't start paying it back until you earn over 21k, as opposed to 15k under the old system and you actually end up paying back less over your lifetime if you remain in a job of a lesser salary. It is basically a graduate tax and they just should have called it that. There are of course weaknesses to the policy, I vehemently disagree with the marketisation of the university sector allowing different institutions to compete on price as I think it could cloud peoples judgements on what course to pick(the right one or the cheaper one?), as well as enshrining a proper two tier system; even more so than is in place today. However, as most unis are just charging '9k', this concern hasn't really materialised. But I still think a graduate tax would be better than the current arrangement, as it would eliminate the extremely bad communication that took place over this policy.

 

Back to the Lib Dems, and specifically Clegg. I don't think he made stupid promises(in plural, the pledge is a separate issue for what has been explained at length by lib dems in the media) at all. His manifesto was based on a Liberal Democrat majority, so of course compromises would have to reached and some policies ditched. But I don't think it'll make much different, I think the Lib Dems will get a major bashing at the next election. They always ride low inbetween elections, so I think they will probably come out with about 30ish seats and maybe something around 16 or 17 percent and will probably form a coalition with Labour.

 

NB:The conservatives won't win the next election, they shot themselves in the foot over lords reform, and now won't get their boundary changes required for their 2015 victory. They must be livid that the Cameron experiment has failed. After all those years of pretending to be cuddly, and care about the environment and social issues such as gay marriage and now they still won't have won an election in over 20 years come 2015. If I were in conservative strategy right now, I'd be panicking big time.

 

They've got as much chance of 16-17% of the vote as I have of growing a 24inch cock.

 

They are a busted flush.

[pap]

Yes, I know that... but paying it back 9% over 21k is not life limiting. It's basically a graduate tax.

 

Is this a tax? This is more like taking a loan out for a specific purpose. Those who do not need to take the loan do not need to pay the interest. It's more of a penalty for anyone who lacks the essential 27K-ness to get into Uni. If the 9% is a tax, it's a mean-tested thing. You only have to pay it if you're poor.

[Saintandy666]

Is this a tax? This is more like taking a loan out for a specific purpose. Those who do not need to take the loan do not need to pay the interest. It's more of a penalty for anyone who lacks the essential 27K-ness to get into Uni. If the 9% is a tax, it's a mean-tested thing. You only have to pay it if you're poor.

 

You have a point on the rich can pay, but I don't see the practicality of it... the rich will always pay no matter what policy you have because well... they're rich. It isn't going to be life limiting and it isn't an awful system of payback. For example, if you are on the higher than average wage of say 30k a year, you pay back £67.50 a month which isn't a whole lot of contribution considering what university gave you. The bad part of this policy is the marketisation of the university system.

 

The real problem of higher education funding is the maintenance loan as I said in my last post.

[Jonnyboy]

Thought his speech today was pretty good. He does give good speech.

 

ALthough he did sound like he'd taken on a few Cameronisms (or maybe the other way round).

[Viking Warrior]

Cable is so left wing it makes millipede a right wing tory

[JPTCount]

never thought he'd make a good leader of the party. his blue n yellow makes green line today was horrible.

 

we need more independents, or a grass roots movement that's not just a bunch of hippies. amazed occupy didn't run for mayor....

 

on a lighter note Dave said today, "I am a little conservative". made me chuckle anyway.

[Jonnyboy]

Cable is so left wing it makes millipede a right wing tory

 

source?

[pap]

You have a point on the rich can pay, but I don't see the practicality of it... the rich will always pay no matter what policy you have because well... they're rich. It isn't going to be life limiting and it isn't an awful system of payback. For example, if you are on the higher than average wage of say 30k a year, you pay back £67.50 a month which isn't a whole lot of contribution considering what university gave you. The bad part of this policy is the marketisation of the university system.

 

The real problem of higher education funding is the maintenance loan as I said in my last post.

 

I can't really agree with that. It's the 1982 thing all over again. Ok, you could potentially argue that a poor 1982 graduate might have an overdraft to pay off - but that's really a personal responsibility thing. I think most people of limited means accept that they'll have to work a bit more than their rich counterparts. I'm not saying that's right, but it's a reality that gets dealt with. The point stands; back then people didn't go into Uni coming out owing 27K.

 

I take your point that tuition fees are not the only thing that a student has to fork out for, but equally, I think you're ordering off the Lib Dem soundbite menu. I also think that some of the other points you've made, such as the massive increase in the number of Universities, are a little misleading. We suddenly had lots of new Universities in 1992, but they were all polytechnics beforehand. It was more a rebranding exercise than some epic feat of civil engineering. Most of the so-called second generation Unis existed as educational institutions in some form or another, usually offering a limited amount of degree courses.

 

That said, there's no arguing with the numbers. More people went to University than ever before, and perhaps ever should have. However, I think the problems are a little deeper than people choosing soft degrees. I've got a couple of mates who used to fit the typical Media Studies graduate profile - earning the same amount of money as they could have as an 18 year old entry-level employee. Thing is, they're smart people. They could easily have done well in the media industry had the opportunities been there, but it's a highly selective industry.

 

Problem is Andy, it's not enough to be smart anymore. You have to be marketably smart. To my simultaneous eternal credit and shame, I realised this when I was a nipper. Took Computing over English because, well, if I'm totally honest, was a bit scared of trying to make it on an English ticket. The computing gig is pretty good, but I worry that our degree courses are merely taking the direction carved out by corporate interests.

[pap]

source?

 

He doesn't need a source. He has a longboat and a sharpened stick.

[Dr. Kucho]

So from that, it doesn't seem like there is damage done to either partner in the coalition as both seem to return. I do see your frustration(is it frustration at the deadlock in government?), something why I have slid towards AMS as a preferred electoral system(like in Scotland) rather than STV.

 

What is going on with the cannabis law reform stuff in the Netherlands? Is it still likely to go through countrywide with the likely new government or will that change?

 

The government want to introduce something called a cannabis pass, meaning that if you want to buy cannabis you have to have a pass. This is mainly to cut down on 'drugs tourism' in Amsterdam and the south of Holland. However this law will just move the problem from the café's to the street as people will buy cannabis in the shops and sell it on the street to the tourists.

I think its likely that this law will go through with the new government.

[Orange]

The tw*t sounds like he was adressing a class of 6 year olds.

 

How no one saw through him during that election campaign is beyond me..

[supersonic]

Jeremy Clarkson (love or hate him) summed him up correctly on twitter:

 

"I've decided after much careful thought that Nick Clegg is a complete arse"

 

and,

 

"What fascinates me about Clegg is that he's managed to alienate the well off AND the not so well off"

[Saintandy666]

The government want to introduce something called a cannabis pass, meaning that if you want to buy cannabis you have to have a pass. This is mainly to cut down on 'drugs tourism' in Amsterdam and the south of Holland. However this law will just move the problem from the café's to the street as people will buy cannabis in the shops and sell it on the street to the tourists.

I think its likely that this law will go through with the new government.

 

I'm sad to here that. On my visits to Amsterdam, it seemed to be a very good system for controlling the problem and the statistics also don't lie. It does seem slightly bizarre though that the government are trying to make people register to buy something that you can obtain legally.

[Wes Tender]

Hopefully, at the very least this experience of government will mean that the Liberal Democrats have a more sturdy core base in the future. Too many people just saw them a protest party or some ridiculously left wing party SWP-equivalent. I don't think they will lose quite as many seats at the next general election as some people predict though. It was interesting to note that in many Lib Dem seats at the locals this year(like Eastleigh and Portsmouth), Liberal Democrats did extremely well and in the case of Eastleigh swept the board!

 

So what do you think is going to happen in Eastleigh at the next general election, Andy? They have one of the party's high-flyers here and one who achieved ministerial status under this coalition. Surely he'll be certain to buck the trend nationally and greatly increase his majority, a man of his upright probity and high-moral fibre.

[Saintandy666]

So what do you think is going to happen in Eastleigh at the next general election, Andy? They have one of the party's high-flyers here and one who achieved ministerial status under this coalition. Surely he'll be certain to buck the trend nationally and greatly increase his majority, a man of his upright probity and high-moral fibre.

 

Eastleigh is a difficult one. You have the Huhne factor, but that didn't seem to deter people in the local elections earlier this year when if I remember correctly, the Liberal Democrats won every seat contested.

[Thedelldays]

its a bit odd that people are turning on clegg for getting some sort of power for their party...

 

isn't this just a peep into any future with PR at the top office..?

[Turkish]

its a bit odd that people are turning on clegg for getting some sort of power for their party...

 

isn't this just a peep into any future with PR at the top office..?

 

Bandwagon jumping. It's the In thing to do. It'll be someone else next week when the sheeplike ones have something else to be outraged by.

[pap]

its a bit odd that people are turning on clegg for getting some sort of power for their party...

 

isn't this just a peep into any future with PR at the top office..?

 

Not really the same thing. If the last election had been decided in a reasonably true proportional sense, the Lib Dems would have over 152 MPs to the Tories 228.

 

http://frigsociety.com/2012/07/12/popularity-contest/

 

As it was, the Lib Dems got 57 seats. The Tories got 307.

[Thedelldays]

Not really the same thing. If the last election had been decided in a reasonably true proportional sense, the Lib Dems would have over 152 MPs to the Tories 228.

 

http://frigsociety.com/2012/07/12/popularity-contest/

 

As it was, the Lib Dems got 57 seats. The Tories got 307.

ok...but havent a disproportionate amount of libdem polices in the current system got in as such..?

 

better to have some than none..? right..?

[Lord Duckhunter]

The Lib/Dems USP was that they weren't Tory's and they weren't Labour. They attracted Labour votes where the Tory's were strong and visa versa. How many votes did Huhme pick up from labour supporters voting to keep the Tory out? Those votes have now gone. My Labour supporting mate votes Lib/dem in Poole because there's more chance of going to the moon in a shoe box than Labour winning the seat. He now hates the Lib/Dems even more than the Tory Party and doubts if he'll vote next time. Couple that with the loss of votes due to this pledge nonsense and they are heading back to 1970's type MP numbers.

 

2 examples.

 

Solihull -175 votes

Dorset Mid and Poole North -269

 

It doesn't take Jon Snow to work out that these seats were won because of voters voting tactically. Will they again?

 

Of the 200 most marginal seats 27 of them are Lib/Dem ones, that's a high % when you only have 57 seats. Of the safest 200 only 4 are Lib/Dem ones. Clegg's pledge will hurt him in Sheffield and Huhme is toast in Eastleigh.

 

Dont forget they lost 5 seats at a time everyone "agreed with Nick".

[Lord Duckhunter]

Not really the same thing. If the last election had been decided in a reasonably true proportional sense, the Lib Dems would have over 152 MPs to the Tories 228.

 

http://frigsociety.com/2012/07/12/popularity-contest/

 

As it was, the Lib Dems got 57 seats. The Tories got 307.

 

Rollocks. There would have been no need for tactical voting if we had PR. Take away Labour voters keeping Torys out and Torys keeping Labour out and their support will collapse.

 

The last UK wide PR election, they came 4th.

[pap]

ok...but havent a disproportionate amount of libdem polices in the current system got in as such..?

 

better to have some than none..? right..?

 

I'm not really arguing that, TDD.

 

You made the point that our present arrangements might be a window into how PR might look. Under PR, the Lib Dems would be in a much stronger negotiating position, as they'd technically represent far more people.

 

The disproportionate proliferation of Lib Dem policies depends largely at which numbers you look at. If you look at the 57 seats, yeah, it does look like they've got a lot through. If you consider they got 6.7M votes out of the 29M that were cast, it looks like a poor return.

[Thedelldays]

I'm not really arguing that, TDD.

 

You made the point that our present arrangements might be a window into how PR might look. Under PR, the Lib Dems would be in a much stronger negotiating position, as they'd technically represent far more people.

 

The disproportionate proliferation of Lib Dem policies depends largely at which numbers you look at. If you look at the 57 seats, yeah, it does look like they've got a lot through. If you consider they got 6.7M votes out of the 29M that were cast, it looks like a poor return.

haven't something like 75% of their policies gotten in.......when were the libdems ever (or ever going to be) in such a position to get that done...yet Clegg is still slated..maybe in PR...they may have got less through

 

selfish people

[pap]

Rollocks. There would have been no need for tactical voting if we had PR. Take away Labour voters keeping Torys out and Torys keeping Labour out and their support will collapse.

 

Hmm. The depressing spectre of tactical voting. Voting because you dislike someone or simply want to pick a winner, rather than out of any genuine conviction.

 

I'm not sure how big a factor tactical voting is. I know that the local Labour lot implored people not to vote Lib Dem so we'd keep the Tories out of Government. Not really onboard with the concept myself.

 

The last UK wide PR election, they came 4th.

 

I love the way you leave bits out Lord D, because it really does make your points so easy to dismantle. You are of course, referring to the 2009 MEP elections, in which UKIP managed to get 3rd place on the back of a massive protest vote. Oh, and about half as many people turned out. Looked brilliant when it was just a one-liner though.

[Wes Tender]

Eastleigh is a difficult one. You have the Huhne factor, but that didn't seem to deter people in the local elections earlier this year when if I remember correctly, the Liberal Democrats won every seat contested.

It might have escaped your attention, Andy, but none of the candidates in the local election here in Eastleigh were Chris Huhne. He will be campaigning again as the local family man, the one that everybody in Eastleigh knows has helped one of their mates. Labour, of course don't stand a chance in Eastleigh according to the Lib Dems, it's a straight race between him and the Tory. The one that doesn't cheat on her husband and wouldn't expect him to take the rap for her if she got caught speeding.

[Saintandy666]

It might have escaped your attention, Andy, but none of the candidates in the local election here in Eastleigh were Chris Huhne. He will be campaigning again as the local family man, the one that everybody in Eastleigh knows has helped one of their mates. Labour, of course don't stand a chance in Eastleigh according to the Lib Dems, it's a straight race between him and the Tory. The one that doesn't cheat on her husband and wouldn't expect him to take the rap for her if she got caught speeding.

 

Indeed, it didn't escape my attention which is why I mentioned the 'Huhne factor'. I have no idea what will happen. It's clear that the Liberal Democrats are still incredibly popular there though. Depends which is most prevalent come 2015. The lib dems did well in other areas where they had MPs too, like Portsmouth which is promising for them.

[JPTCount]

its a bit odd that people are turning on clegg for getting some sort of power for their party...

 

isn't this just a peep into any future with PR at the top office..?

 

real power would have been staying neutral and having both parties come begging to get bills through.

 

they did in the greater interests of the country and economy, this government have laughable. recently I was trying to think of a major change they've made, thats actually good, and couldn't....

[Wes Tender]

Indeed, it didn't escape my attention which is why I mentioned the 'Huhne factor'. I have no idea what will happen. It's clear that the Liberal Democrats are still incredibly popular there though. Depends which is most prevalent come 2015. The lib dems did well in other areas where they had MPs too, like Portsmouth which is promising for them.

 

Ah, so no Mike Hancock factor there then either? It seems that currently the South's Lib Dem MPs haven't exactly covered themselves with glory.