OK fine. I'm not going to debate that possibility because it seems somewhat unlikely.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
UK General Election 12th December 2019 |OT1| Hindsight is 20/19 (Tory majority confirmed)
- Thread starter Uzzy
- Start date
- Status
OK fine. I'm not going to debate that possibility because it seems somewhat unlikely.
Fuck me! They are raking it in this election. This is a very positive sign.
Still want Farage to split the right wing vote right down the middle, but will laugh my ass when shit like this happens to him and bojo.
He put on a flatcap to wander around Cumbria. Couldn't be more obvious if he tried. How do you do fellow northerners
It is but Labour always get waaaaay more in funding than the 'billionaire' Tories because they have so many members. This time last year the Tories were skint.
Though that doesn't account for the reports of Russian money being pushed Boris' way recently.
The absolute best case and certainly in the realms of possibility scenario is Labour working with the SNP and the Lib Dems aren't required at all.
Who are exactly the same people who pay the debts now.
Except with fees, there are more places.
and more places going to children from disadvantaged backgrounds
All this shows is that the proportion of disadvantaged students going to uni is going up, not that tuition fees are the cause. Correlation =/= causation
I would argue that the increasing necessity of a degree to get a job is more likely a driver of this than making people pay more for their education.
I don't have much faith this write off will ever happen tbh. When the first lot of unpaid loans starts coming up, no government is going to want to have to deal with that write off on the books
Also, its a stupid system that hits the middle hardest - low earners don't pay it off in full, high earners pay theirs off faster, meaning they pay less in interest, and middle earners pay theirs off close to the 25 year limit, meaning they pay the most. It sucks on loads of levels.
Look at the data, it still isn't very good is it? It also doesn't highlight tutition fees as the cause. You seem to want to paint as amazing. A 11% increase while good also shows how bad it actually is.
Within the realms of possibility....yes. I don't think it's very likely though, Tories would be on less than 300 easily with a swing against them like that.
That's 14/1 with the bookies. So not impossible but I wouldn't count on it and I wouldn't plan accordingly.
Remove the fees and it might be a higher %age, this data doesn't prove the point
It also isn't typically counted as debt by a lot of organisations, so it doesn't count against your ability to get a mortgage or a credit card in the way a normal debt would. Obviously it's an outgoing expense but as you note it's more like a utility payment except for the very, very well paid.
This is one of my slight concerns. In twenty or so years we're going to start writing off a huge amount of debt year after year forever. The amounts are incredible - I think the estimates put it above £10bn a year but it could easily be quite a bit more than that as it will be hugely affected by economic circumstances. In an economic crash it will be so easy for a government to see removing or extending the write off as a good way to reduce the deficit. The combination of the write-off and the high repayment threshold right now makes Plan 2 a fairly progressive scheme which will only hammer the highest earners but if you extended the write-off from 30 years to 40 years it would be a very different story.
For what it's worth if you're paying £30/mo on Plan 1 I'm pretty sure you'd be paying £0 on Plan 2.
I keep seeing doctored photos and fake news about Corbyn on facebook. People don't even take a second to fact check it. You don't even need to make fake news about Boris, he's just a dick.
That and there are more and more schemes and charities being setup to help poc pay tuition fees (and cost of living fees). It could easily just be down to them then "tuition fees".
What do you reckon the odds were for a Conservative minority government at the very beginning of the last election?
I am not painting it as amazing. I am showing it as an improvement. Yes it could be better. But you are not going to make it better by reversing the factor that cause the improvement.
And if you or Timmm think that there is a flaw in the correlation between fees allowing more universities to provide more places and more places leading to more admissions, then that's fine but respectfully, I'll disagree with you.
You can disagree but there are no facts to back up your disagreement. So it is only just your opinion
Like I said there are more and more charities and schemes being set up to help poc get into uni. It could therefore just be them doing the work and not tuition fees.
Without the fees, there aren't any places, without the places, there cannot be more admissions.
The universities can put more places on because they know they will be filled and paid for by fees.
At some point people will have to realise when every centre of power is moving against labour so obviously, there are probably worth voting for.
Richard Tice is standing in Hartlepool for the Brexit party.
What do people make of his chances? I'd think it would be a tough sell for a privately educated asset manager from Surrey to get elected in a North East town but almost three quarters of the electorate voted to leave.
What do people make of his chances? I'd think it would be a tough sell for a privately educated asset manager from Surrey to get elected in a North East town but almost three quarters of the electorate voted to leave.
Scrap tuition fees and reintegrate all forms of private education into a state system. Incentivise the most experienced teachers to work in low income areas around the country. Not only will we see more PoC and lower working class with degrees but they wont be priced out of the best universities and highest earning degrees
Vote Labour
Quality of degrees is just as important as no. of places.
Vote Labour
Quality of degrees is just as important as no. of places.
you don't even need fake news about Corbyn plenty of people just don't like him for things he's actually done (and some for the things he won't do like nuke France)
They aren't going to demand everyone who hasn't paid the fees off does so. There is going to be issue in 15-20 years when people start defaulting, but the mechanisms for dealing with it are to put the interest rates up so those that are paying pay for longer. This puts all the strain on middle earners rather than the poor or wealthy.
No facts? Seriously? I get that you have a point of view and it is deeply held and you don't particularly appreciate being pulled up on it by some dickhead on the internet, no-one likes that. But just think about it for a second. It doesn't matter how many charities are set up to pay the fees, the fees are still there provioding the places
?
I mean, that's fine and all, but you're still the one advocating that those with less paying more are somehow better off than before when they would pay less. Given how counter intuitive this is, the onus is on you to provide the data that proves it (and no, the links you have already given aren't sufficient here)
I mean there's a lot more issues in going to university than just the fee issue anyway. At least when I went, which was just before the tuition fee hike, you didn't really get enough money to be able to live on while at university. Which basically meant you either get support from your parents(wasn't an option for me), go to a local university, or get a part time job to fund it which would obviously negatively affect your studies.
Not really accurate by my reckoning. You have to be a high earner to get really hit by the new system. An average earning graduate won't get hit by the interest really.
This is far worse now because of the changes made to grants (which should be a far bigger political issue than the tuition fees).
I know but if he's as bad as they say he is, you think they would stop making shit up like made up quotes about terrorists enabling and a picture on top
This isn't even remotely true. Tories may have less individual donors, but they receive way more money. Three times as much in 2018, and that includes the short money Labour get.
You are pulling up anything, you are giving a opinion. You haven't backed up your opinion with anything.
I will concede they have had more in the last year or so though
Also to consider is that the Tories get more in donations from dead members wills than they do from living members.
Luckily they have Russia and other shady people to help pump money into their accounts.
Did you read the link you posted?
It says in the first quarter of 2019 the Tories received £3.68m compared to Labours £3.5m. And that's classified as a disastrous quarter for the Tories. So how does that square with your assertion that Labour always receive way more?
Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice is standing in Hartlepool.
voted 70% leave but in 2017 voted Labour
doesn't seem like the most winnable seat for them but they're putting one of their big names there anyway
voted 70% leave but in 2017 voted Labour
doesn't seem like the most winnable seat for them but they're putting one of their big names there anyway
Yeah the last year things have changed but I did allude to that in my original post, in my edit, Labour got more that the Tories in 2017
2017 was a record year for Labour, the most they'd ever raised, and if you discount the public short money opposition parties get, they only received slightly more than the Tories. In terms of donations from members, the thing we were talking about, Labour received £18m in 2017, compared to £34m for the Tories.
Like I said, they just show numbers are going up but don't talk about how the increases in fees impacts it. Your links prove correlation but not causation.
If you refuse to acknowledge the self-evident causation in what I posted that's up to you. Seems little value in posting anything else.
Well yeah, electoral pacts/alliances by definition work on a give and take basis. "Stand aside for us, but we won't for you" is not an alliance.
Labour have consistently and steadfastly rejected any notion of an electoral alliance. That's their position, and it's a perfectly valid one to take, but it's not then particularly surprising when the parties that do want to operate with one don't include them in it.
No I mean the framing of it. It's bullshit and they know it and it doesn't help at all in getting to remain.
- Status