UK PoliticsERA |OT1| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos! PART 2

[PJV3]

I only just saw the Campbell thing now, it's pretty obvious what he's up to, it just isn't going to achieve anything, not many like him on the wing of the party he supports. it's just dragging the party through more crap for nothing and giving the moderates something to tweet about.

"I do not know at this stage how I will vote at the next election and I have made this decision after discussing it with nobody apart from family and a small number of close personal friends," he said, adding that this was not part of some bigger plan but a deeply personal decision."

A deeply personal decision involving two newspapers and a letter to the leader of the Labour party, my eyes rolled 360 degrees reading some of his letter.


Jeremy won't be getting an invite to Branson's island.



Perhaps our NHS could have the money back from when you sued it? …


@richardbranson
I truly believe that 'stuff' really does not bring happiness. Family, friends, good health and the satisfaction that comes from making a positive difference are what really matters https://virg.in/w2C
@JeremyCorbyn
Perhaps our NHS could have the money back from when you sued it? …

 

[Zastava]

I agree, I don't think remain would win.

Whilst I think political necessity means they have to back remain and a second referendum, i'm fairly sympathetic to the more idealistic view of trying to move on from the hell that is Brexit with an uber soft Brexit and somehow trying to stop the country being split in two, giving them a chance to fix the poverty and inequality that is rife in this country (and was the breeding ground for Brexit).

Click to shrink...

The problem with this is that it is no longer possible, if it ever was. Maybe it could've been the best path back in 2016, but May fucked it up completely with her incendiary rhetoric and red lines. Now the population is radicalised to two extremes. 40% want to remain whatever happens, 40% want no deal whatever happens, with a squishy sub 20% who would be happy with some sort of compromise soft or medium Brexit but mostly lean remain if forced to choose.

This has long been the problem with Labour's position. They're still advocating for a compromise policy that is no longer viable which both sides would absolutely hate for being vastly inferior to remain and not nearly brexity enough and wouldn't stop the country being split. That ship has sailed. Whatever happens in the next few years there's going to be a very angry populace.

 

[PJV3]

The problem with this is that it is no longer possible, if it ever was. Maybe it could've been the best path back in 2016, but May fucked it up completely with her incendiary rhetoric and red lines. Now the population is radicalised to two extremes. 40% want to remain whatever happens, 40% want no deal whatever happens, with a squishy sub 20% who would be happy with some sort of compromise soft or medium Brexit but mostly lean remain if forced to choose.

This has long been the problem with Labour's position. They're still advocating for a compromise policy that is no longer viable which both sides would absolutely hate for being vastly inferior to remain and not nearly brexity enough and wouldn't stop the country being split. That ship has sailed. Whatever happens in the next few years there's going to be a very angry populace.

Click to shrink...

Perhaps i woke up with a serious case of the stupid, but your numbers suggest the opposite, neither side can win on their own, but a compromise could get to the 60% figure. I don't think complete harmony was ever on offer but a soft brexit actually happening would kill some of the brexiters argument even if it meant they continue to campaign for a harder one.

 

[jelly]

Run on vote remain and never hear about it again, vote no deal or similar and hear about it for the next 10-20 years. Easy choice :D

People wrongly think no deal will be a relief, end of Brexit, life goes on but it's just the start, hell the WA is just the start if that ever passed! Things will not go back to social issues, NHS etc. It will be a 10 year plus ongoing clusterfuck.

 

[PJV3]

Run on vote remain and never hear about it again, vote no deal or similar and hear about it for the next 10-20 years. Easy choice :D

People wrongly think no deal will be a relief, end of Brexit, life goes on but it's just the start, hell the WA is just the start if that ever passed! Things will not go back to social issues, NHS etc. It will be a 10 year plus ongoing clusterfuck.

Click to shrink...

I don't think no brexit is going to be the end, not with who controls the media and the message, who goes out to vote year after year etc. Gradually yes as the people die off, but it's an easy way into politics and attention.

 

[Zastava]

Perhaps i woke up with a serious case of the stupid but your numbers suggest the opposite, neither side can win on their own, but a compromise could get to the 60% figure. I don't think complete harmony was ever on offer but a soft brexit actually happening would kill some of the brexiters argument even if it meant they continue to campaign for a harder one.

Click to shrink...

I mean 80% are radicalised and utterly unable to compromise. You often hear remainers talk about Labour's position as if it's equivalent to the Tory one, when that's blatantly untrue. I mean, I find the Labour position disappointing and inadequate but it's still massively better than the Tory one. It's at worst medium Brexit with an obvious pathway to remaining. Tories are now No Deal with a small chance of a hard Brexit, zero chance of remaining. I don't think people who equate the two seem like they're open to be convinced of a middle way.

Conversely, to the 40% crazies who want No Deal, Labour's position is some sort of quisling anti-British selling us out to the forrins thing. They're not gonna be satisfied by anything other than the hardest or most catastrophic of Brexits.

 

[PJV3]

I mean 80% are radicalised and utterly unable to compromise. You often hear remainers talk about Labour's position as if it's equivalent to the Tory one, when that's blatantly untrue. I mean, I find the Labour position disappointing and inadequate but it's still massively better than the Tory one. It's at worst medium Brexit with an obvious pathway to remaining. Tories are now No Deal with a small chance of a hard Brexit, zero chance of remaining. I don't think people who equate the two seem like they're open to be convinced of a middle way.

Conversely, to the 40% crazies who want No Deal, Labour's position is some sort of quisling anti-British selling us out to the forrins thing. They're not gonna be satisfied by anything other than the hardest or most catastrophic of Brexits.

Click to shrink...

I get you now, yeah a huge chunk is going to be unhappy with whatever happens, i just think a softer brexit is the easiest to build back from as it will even "satisfy" some leave voters enough to keep them less angry etc. but yeah the population is doing a number on itself.

 

[Deleted member 34788]

Does Labour now back a second referendum in all circumstances? "What we'd say is there'll be a second referendum to make a choice between whatever deal is arranged and what the public want."

Including a Labour deal if you are in power? "Yes, of course, the same thing would apply."


Labour have promised a second referendum regardless. The only circumstance in which Labour won't necessarily back Remain is if it gets the chance to improve the deal. I do think that message is a bit too hazy, and they should probably just say "Remain regardless" right now, because time constraints mean there is no real chance of them negotiating their own deal anyway.

Meanwhile Lib Dems are "hmmm well I guess i'd say i'm a liberal democrat. Brexit is bad, but it's causes... it's causes are very good.".

Click to shrink...

Expect a final, small shift in the leadership backing remain in any circumstance, but allowing MPs, members etc to campaign how they like. Could be the cabinet back remain too. This will happen thanks to BoJo and no deal co. It'll happen before the GE too, as the final plank for more labour remainers to come back to the fold. Either they do this or the membership forces them too, regardless. Effectively a repeat of the 2016 position.

They are holding that position back, likely due to the Boris factor, appealing to the no deal Tory base.

 

[Zastava]

I get you now, yeah a huge chunk is going to be unhappy with whatever happens, i just think a softer brexit is the easiest to build back from as it will even "satisfy" some leave voters enough to keep them less angry etc. but yeah the population is doing a number on itself.

Click to shrink...

I think the number of either side who would grudgingly accept a compromise soft/softish Brexit is vastly outweighed by the number who would stay angry and view it as a betrayal.

I guess at this point I don't think it's possible for there to be a "good" solution. Our population is irrevocably divided and one half is going to be really pissed off whatever happens. I think remaining is the least-worst position because it doesn't fuck us over anymore than this whole thing already has and protects our rights, and the rights of our immigrant population. And No Deal would be such a shit show that I think even the "winning" side would still be angry. All this bullshit about optimism and the Blitz Spirit comes from people who have never known any real hardship in their lives and are incapable of imagining what it would be really like. It will not survive contact with reality for anyone but the rich Brexiters. Their middle class and working class supporters will be sharply disappointed, and they're not going to blame themselves.

Also the No Deal crazies overwhelmingly skew older so 1) they're less likely to do anything more than piss and moan, and 2) putting it in stark terms, will be around for a lot less time to continue holding a grudge. Whereas the remain population skews a lot younger and could remain pissed off for a long, long time.

 

[Deleted member 18857]

2) putting it in stark terms, will be around for a lot less time to continue holding a grudge.

Click to shrink...

Even less time after the NHS is privatized.

 

[Rodelero]

I think the number of either side who would grudgingly accept a compromise soft/softish Brexit is vastly outweighed by the number who would stay angry and view it as a betrayal.

I guess at this point I don't think it's possible for there to be a "good" solution. Our population is irrevocably divided and one half is going to be really pissed off whatever happens. I think remaining is the least-worst position because it doesn't fuck us over anymore than this whole thing already has and protects our rights, and the rights of our immigrant population. And No Deal would be such a shit show that I think even the "winning" side would still be angry. All this bullshit about optimism and the Blitz Spirit comes from people who have never known any real hardship in their lives and are incapable of imagining what it would be really like. It will not survive contact with reality for anyone but the rich Brexiters. Their middle class and working class supporters will be sharply disappointed, and they're not going to blame themselves.

Also the No Deal crazies overwhelmingly skew older so 1) they're less likely to do anything more than piss and moan, and 2) putting it in stark terms, will be around for a lot less time to continue holding a grudge. Whereas the remain population skews a lot younger and could remain pissed off for a long, long time.

Click to shrink...

I think part of the issue for me, as someone that continues to feel very strongly that we should Remain, is that compromising on issues like this doesn't really seem to work. The people holding the reigns on the Leave side take a mile every time you give an inch and that is how we've shifted over the last three years from Brexit being 'Leaving the European Union with a great deal where we keep most of the benefits of the EU' to 'Leave the European Union without any agreement at all".

Compromise on this has never really been an option anyway. May wasn't interested. Boris is even less interested. I'd take a compromise (a true compromise, not half way between sanity and insanity), but I'm not going to stop being a Remainer while no compromise is on the table. When we treat compromise as "in the middle", we allow our opponents to come up with more and more outrageous positions to achieve what they want. At some point a line has to be drawn.

 

[Zastava]

I think part of the issue for me, as someone that continues to feel very strongly that we should Remain, is that compromising on issues like this doesn't really seem to work. The people holding the reigns on the Leave side take a mile every time you give an inch and that is how we've shifted over the last three years from Brexit being 'Leaving the European Union with a great deal where we keep most of the benefits of the EU' to 'Leave the European Union without any agreement at all".

Compromise on this has never really been an option anyway. May wasn't interested. Boris is even less interested. I'd take a compromise (a true compromise, not half way between sanity and insanity), but I'm not going to stop being a Remainer while no compromise is on the table.

Click to shrink...

I also agree with this. Everyone on the leave side (who is still a leaver, there have been a few notable defections) is a disingenuous liar who never remotely brought up the possibility of no deal until May's godawful speech about no deal being better than a bad deal (Nick Timothy has a lot to answer for, the irresponsible prick). Now it's supposedly what everyone always voted for.

It's abundantly clear they'll cry betrayal for anything less than 100% pure no deal catastrophic brexit. I mean, May's deal was considerably harder than anything anybody advocated for in the referendum. Back then it was all stay in the single market, all the benefits, none of the downsides etc. And yet they all hated it for being too soft. So why try and compromise with these people? Why try and meet them in the middle? They're still call you an unpatriotic traitor. Fuck 'em. Give them nothing and drink their tears.

 

[Many Peaks]

It's pretty clear that some form of Brexit deal needs to be there not to push it as a compromise with the expectation it can win, but as a safety net to stop no deal if remain can't command a majority.

 

[twofold]

Doesn't really matter when their party wants to inflict that damage regardless.

Click to shrink...

Based on what?

Because the IFS' analysis of the 2017 manifestos saw the Lib Dem manifesto benefiting poorer deciles more than any other party -

And they planned to reverse more benefit cuts than the Labour party, too -

Both the Liberal Democrats and Labour propose increasing income tax. While the Liberal Democrat proposal would affect the highest-income half of adults, Labour's proposal would only affect the highest-income 2%. But the revenue from Labour's plans is vastly more uncertain, and highly likely to be lower than under the Liberal Democrats.

Both the Liberal Democrats and Labour propose increases to benefits. But those proposed by the Liberal Democrats are much larger – reversing nearly all of the cuts planned for the next few years.

This observation focuses just on income tax and benefits, so is only part of the bigger picture. Both parties propose other tax rises (such as higher rates of corporation tax) which would also ultimately affect the incomes of UK households. And both parties propose increases in public spending, particularly on education and the NHS.

Click to shrink...

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9235

 

[Protome]

Based on what?

Because the IFS' analysis of the 2017 manifestos saw the Lib Dem manifesto benefiting poorer deciles more than any other party -

And they planned to reverse more benefit cuts than the Labour party, too -

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9235

Click to shrink...

Their voting record, not their manifesto. With FPTP and the Lib Dem's not even being in the top 3 largest parties in Parliament these days their manifesto is mostly irrelevant because as we've seen before they will drop it in its near entirety when forming a deal with another party.

The Lib Dem manifesto is a bunch of promises that exist solely to be traded away for power during coalition negotiations.

 

[IpKaiFung]

Yes, I remember the lib dems promising to revoke tuition fees during the 2010 elections. Remind me what happened when they formed a coalition.

 

[Deleted member 835]

RIP

Fuck the Tories

 

[Dirtyshubb]

RIP

Fuck the Tories

Click to shrink...

Absolutely disgusting what the tories have done to those people...

On a different note, did anyone see this epic burn from Corbyn? Over 110m likes too.

 

[Many Peaks]

What metric could they possibly have to say that it's not a "broad church"? It's so transparent that what they actually mean is "the left are becoming too prominent and that's bad for moderates".

 

[Rodelero]

Yes, I remember the lib dems promising to revoke tuition fees during the 2010 elections. Remind me what happened when they formed a coalition.

Click to shrink...

I mean firstly... coalitions require compromise, particularly from the smaller party.

Secondly, the pledge was to not vote through any tuition fee increases and to pressure the government to implement fairer alternatives, not to get rid of tuition fees entirely I believe. On the former, they obviously broke the pledge but on the latter it's not such an obvious slam dunk. Plan 2 is significantly more progressive than Plan 1 and a large number of graduates (the less well off ones) will pay less under Plan 2 than they would have under Plan 1.

Far more than the majority of people complaining about the Lib Dems doing this:
1) Are unaffected and are using it as a cudgel against the Lib Dems
2) Are affected but are probably better off short and long term
3) Are affected but are better off short term and only marginally worse off long term

 

[PJV3]

What metric could they possibly have to say that it's not a "broad church"? It's so transparent that what they actually mean is "the left are becoming too prominent and that's bad for moderates".

Click to shrink...

They need to stop whining, practice what they preach and reform/up their game, instead of turning loopy at the first sign of some competition or running away. The centre and right of the party have an important role to play in the party but they spend all their energy on trying to get Corbyn out without bringing anything to replace him or the motivation to get the party energised.

They are kinda lucky Brexit happened as it gives them something to say people agree with them on.

 

[IpKaiFung]

There was no compromise, the lib dems cheered everything on from the Tories.

All they did was facilitate brutal Tory cuts.

before you mention the tax free allowance. It looks great on paper but it was ofset by a 2.5% increase on the standard rate of VAT which I have pointed out many times.

 

[Rodelero]

There was no compromise, the lib dems cheered everything on from the Tories.

All they did was facilitate brutal Tory cuts.

before you mention the tax free allowance. It looks great on paper but it was ofset by a 2.5% increase on the standard rate of VAT which I have pointed out many times.

Click to shrink...

I see you're completely ignoring the points I made about the tuition fees then. If there was no coalition, it's quite possible that there would have been a VAT increase and no change to the personal allowance.

Serious question: what do you think would have happened if the Liberal Democrats refused to go into coalition with the Conservatives?

 

[PJV3]

Serious question: what do you think would have happened if the Liberal Democrats refused to go into coalition with the Conservatives?

Click to shrink...

I think another election leading to another hung parliament or very slim conservative lead , i don't accept the idea there was an automatic route to a real Tory majority that people like to peddle. but there's not much point to guessing an alternative history.

 

[IpKaiFung]

Plan 2 is better than plan 1 but they still broke their pledge.

If the Lib Dems didn't go into coalition then there would have been a minority Conservative government which would have made it harder to get their bills through.

Which would have led to another GE.

 

[PJV3]

Plan 2 is better than plan 1 but they still broke their pledge.

If the Lib Dems didn't go into coalition then there would have been a minority Conservative government which would have made it harder to get their bills through.

Which would have led to another GE.

Click to shrink...

If they had scraped a win then Cameron would have spent his time managing the bastards instead of pretending the Tory party was now a liberal progressive one.

 

[Rodelero]

Plan 2 is better than plan 1 but they still broke their pledge.

Click to shrink...

So you'd be happier if they'd achieved nothing, even though the resulting policy would be worse?!

If the Lib Dems didn't go into coalition then there would have been a minority Conservative government which would have made it harder to get their bills through.

Which would have led to another GE.

Click to shrink...

I think another election leading to another hung parliament or very slim conservative lead , i don't accept the idea there was an automatic route to a real Tory majority that people like to peddle. but there's not much point to guessing an alternative history.

Click to shrink...

I think it's immensely likely that the Conservatives would have at least gained seats with another election. Hell, they outright won in 2015 after five years of austerity. Ultimately I accept that no-one can know what would have happened, but there's an attitude from the Lib Dem detractors which suggests that it would definitely have been better had they refused the coalition, for which there is no evidence.

 

[Many Peaks]

So you'd be happier if they'd achieved nothing, even though the resulting policy would be worse?!





I think it's immensely likely that the Conservatives would have at least gained seats with another election. Hell, they outright won in 2015 after five years of austerity. Ultimately I accept that no-one can know what would have happened, but there's an attitude from the Lib Dem detractors which suggests that it would definitely have been better had they refused the coalition, for which there is no evidence.

Click to shrink...

We have the evidence of their record while they were in coalition to judge them on. We don't need to delve into hypotheticals about what would have happened had they not gone into coalition.

 

[Gawge]

Plan 2 is better than plan 1 but they still broke their pledge.

Click to shrink...

27k is better than 9k? RPI+3% interest is better than 1.5% interest?

They also persisted in using loan/debt terminology which is specifically and intentionally designed to put off working class kids from going to university.

 

[Deleted member 835]

Lib Dems helped create austerity, which has been linked to 160k deaths and growing. Trying to defend them because they were in a 'coalition' is weird. Many of the policies they helped to bring in has made people way worse off.

They showed who they were and showed they didn't care. New Labour were the same.

 

[Rodelero]

27k is better than 9k? RPI+3% interest is better than 1.5% interest?

Click to shrink...

1) Tuition fees for Plan 1 when Plan 2 came in were more like £3,750. Had Plan 1 stayed as it was, they'd be far beyond £4,000 now.
2) The interest rate under Plan 2 is actually variable (from RPI up to RPI + 3% depending on income). You have to earn >£45k to be on 6.3%.
3) You're ignoring the importance of the repayment threshold and write off.

Fundamentally, both Plan 1 and Plan 2 take 9% of what you earn over a certain amount. The threshold is £18,935 on Plan 1 and £25,750 on Plan 2. For someone on Plan 2 earning over £25,750, they will repay £613 less than they would have if they were on Plan 1 each year.

Hence, in the short term, everyone is better off under Plan 2 than Plan 1:

A lot of people will simply be better off under the plan because their debt will be written off before they get anywhere near paying back even the amount of debt they'd have had under Plan 1.

The number of people in the long term who will be significantly worse off is relatively few, and I do think it's arguable that it's better to have that extra £613pa when you are young, even if you end up paying a few thousand more back over thirty years.

There are a relatively small number of people who will pay back an absolute fortune under Plan 2 because of the size of the original loan and the high interest rate, and that is a problem, but we are talking about the wages you rarely get outside of the city so while student finance will overburden them, they'll still be well off.

(I really don't want to be pigeon holed as someone who thinks Plan 2 is good policy. It's not. Plan 1 sucks. Plan 2 sucks. The notion that the shift from Plan 1 to Plan 2 is a travesty, however, is an outright lie. Labour's manifesto pledges on it also kinda make no sense. This is a huge problem and it's increasingly tough to unpick).

They also persisted in using loan/debt terminology which is specifically and intentionally designed to put off working class kids from going to university.

Click to shrink...

How would you describe it?

Lib Dems helped create austerity, which has been linked to 160k deaths and growing. Trying to defend them because they were in a 'coalition' is weird. Many of the policies they helped to bring in has made people way worse off.

They showed who they were and showed they didn't care. New Labour were the same.

Click to shrink...

Here's my issue: you've just mentioned everyone who actually has a meaningful record of achieving... anything

 

[IpKaiFung]

27k is better than 9k? RPI+3% interest is better than 1.5% interest?

They also persisted in using loan/debt terminology which is specifically and intentionally designed to put off working class kids from going to university.

Click to shrink...

The repayment threshold is a lot higher on P2 and as it's hard to get a first job paying over 25k after graduation you pay less than on P1.

Either way you slice it, student finance repayments is a graduate tax and both plans are shit.

 

[formasymphonic]

Spoiler: Tweet contents

Why is @BBCr4today allowing Steve Bannon to deliver a constant stream of misinformation and falsehood almost completely unchallenged on Boris Johnson, Farage, Brexit, Trump, immigration etc. This isn't an interview it's a rant and Jon Sopel is nowhere.

Spoiler: Tweet contents

Absolute case study in how not to handle a controversial subject like Bannon.

Spoiler: Tweet contents

It gets worse... [retweet of Interviewer promoting an extended version of Bannon interview]

Spoiler: Tweet contents

Remind me ... Who is the editor of the Today programme?

 

[Gawge]

A lot of people will simply be better off under the plan because their debt will be written off before they get anywhere near paying back even the amount of debt they'd have had under Plan 1.

How would you describe it?

Click to shrink...

The repayment threshold is a lot higher on P2 and as it's hard to get a first job paying over 25k after graduation you pay less than on P1.

Either way you slice it, student finance repayments is a graduate tax and both plans are shit.

Click to shrink...

That was the main driver of my second point. The headlines were constantly about 27k of debt, it was purposefully done in that way to put working class people off going to university.

I think both plans are bad, but my fundamental beef is that student loans are, and continue to be described as debt. They are not really debt, they are a graduate tax. They are conveniently described as debt because it worries and concerns people who come from families and areas where university is not usually considered as the main option.

The Tories obviously don't want people from Hull clogging up the Cambridge admissions process, but you might have thought the Lib Dems may have tried to put up a concerted effort to change the message there - that it isn't really debt. Of course, in practice they are mostly mates with the Tories.

 

[electroshockwave]

Even less time after the NHS is privatized.

Click to shrink...

There's a silver lining at least.

 

[Rodelero]

That was the main driver of my second point. The headlines were constantly about 27k of debt, it was purposefully done in that way to put working class people off going to university.

I think both plans are bad, but my fundamental beef is that student loans are, and continue to be described as debt. They are not really debt, they are a graduate tax. They are conveniently described as debt because it worries and concerns people who come from families and areas where university is not usually considered as the main option.

The Tories obviously don't want people from Hull clogging up the Cambridge admissions process, but you might have thought the Lib Dems may have tried to put up a concerted effort to change the message there - that it isn't really debt. Of course, in practice they are mostly mates with the Tories.

Click to shrink...

I think just as large a factor in the way that misinformation has been spread about the policy is that it benefits the media (to simplify and exaggerate a story which makes people angry), and the two main parties (because it heavily damages the third biggest parties). The policy is too complex for its own good and the impression you get from reading/watching the news is that very few politicians or journalists actually understand it.

To be honest, I don't really think it would be any better to call it a graduate tax. It's more like a loan than a tax though it is effectively a hybrid, and the richer you are, the more like a loan it becomes.

 

[PJV3]

Spoiler: Tweet contents

Remind me ... Who is the editor of the Today programme?

Click to shrink...

[/MEDIA][/QUOTE]

She's another of those typical BBC loony lefties who have edited the Telegraph, the London evening standard and worked at the Daily Mail.

 

[Deleted member 862]

Is there anything more pathetic than Alastair Campbell complaining that nobody is paying attention to him lol



Mate, you "quit". just go away.

 

[Gawge]

Is there anything more pathetic than Alastair Campbell complaining that nobody is paying attention to him lol



Mate, you "quit". just go away.

Click to shrink...

 

[Dougald]

Campbell hasn't been relevant in what, over a decade now? Struggling to see why anyone should care about his moaning or why Labour should be emailing me about him

 

[formasymphonic]

[/MEDIA]

Click to shrink...

She's another of those typical BBC loony lefties who have edited the Telegraph, the London evening standard and worked at the Daily Mail.
[/QUOTE]
there's a "three left turns" joke in there somewhere that I'm too annoyed to make right now. The BBC really need to do better in understanding the effect they have in legitimising people like Bannon and their ideologies.

 

[Deleted member 835]

1) Tuition fees for Plan 1 when Plan 2 came in were more like £3,750. Had Plan 1 stayed as it was, they'd be far beyond £4,000 now.
2) The interest rate under Plan 2 is actually variable (from RPI up to RPI + 3% depending on income). You have to earn >£45k to be on 6.3%.
3) You're ignoring the importance of the repayment threshold and write off.

Fundamentally, both Plan 1 and Plan 2 take 9% of what you earn over a certain amount. The threshold is £18,935 on Plan 1 and £25,750 on Plan 2. For someone on Plan 2 earning over £25,750, they will repay £613 less than they would have if they were on Plan 1 each year.

Hence, in the short term, everyone is better off under Plan 2 than Plan 1:

A lot of people will simply be better off under the plan because their debt will be written off before they get anywhere near paying back even the amount of debt they'd have had under Plan 1.

The number of people in the long term who will be significantly worse off is relatively few, and I do think it's arguable that it's better to have that extra £613pa when you are young, even if you end up paying a few thousand more back over thirty years.

There are a relatively small number of people who will pay back an absolute fortune under Plan 2 because of the size of the original loan and the high interest rate, and that is a problem, but we are talking about the wages you rarely get outside of the city so while student finance will overburden them, they'll still be well off.

(I really don't want to be pigeon holed as someone who thinks Plan 2 is good policy. It's not. Plan 1 sucks. Plan 2 sucks. The notion that the shift from Plan 1 to Plan 2 is a travesty, however, is an outright lie. Labour's manifesto pledges on it also kinda make no sense. This is a huge problem and it's increasingly tough to unpick).



How would you describe it?



Here's my issue: you've just mentioned everyone who actually has a meaningful record of achieving... anything

Click to shrink...

Achieving more poor people? Illegal wars? Killing my kin?

 

[Deleted member 835]

Eammon doesn't get uppity when said to a black person has a racist history. Man going crazy on twitter over it

Also

2m on trying to cover up shit

 

[Deleted member 835]

 

[RedSparrows]

Every penny counts. After all, we needed the cash to throw after Brexit, plan a new Royal Yacht, and buy a new aircraft carrier. Simples.

/Shotgun

 

[Deleted member 835]

 

[Anton]

With campaigning I think we will see the Tory lead shrink like it did back with May, they've just got nothing aside from Brexit to vote for them now

 

[PJV3]

With campaigning I think we will see the Tory lead shrink like it did back with May, they've just got nothing aside from Brexit to vote for them now

Click to shrink...

If the media let Boris hide away for 6 weeks and let him piss about in the few interviews he allows then i don't know how that will go down with the public these days, the ERG seem to have him by the bollocks so he might squirm under pressure to appear in the centre.

 

[Gareth]

Lib Dems won the by-election.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Lmao get fucked tories