[]
Post by Peter PercivalPost by BrritSkiIndeed good news.
Post by krwI hope the new Government of whichever party will honour the proposal
to get rid of student debt and fees. We need to educate our youth and
burdening them with debt is the wrong way to do it.
The "debt" in question is in practice in many cases never paid off:
1. It's written off after 30 years anyway;
2. You only pay it if your salary exceeds a certain amount;
3. even when your salary does exceed that amount, the repayment is only
9% (I think) of that part of your salary that does exceed that amount.
Post by Peter PercivalPost by BrritSkiYou can only have free tertiary education if you reduce the numbers
drastically. We simply cannot afford to do it, like we couldn't afford
If you reduce the numbers (i. e. not "for all"), it then becomes a
question of how you decide who gets it. While I personally _do_ feel
there should be some such limit/reduction, I'd hate to be involved in
the decisions involved (and being of the generation that _did_ get it,
would feel [even more] guilty). There are at least three ways of doing
the selection:
1. Entrance exam.s, in one form or another. Disadvantage (or one of
them): favours the rich (to _some_ extent), as they can go to better
schools and thus do better in those exam.s.
2. Perceived need: we need doctors, engineers, etc. more than [insert
current hate-category here - media studies, Eng. Lit., ...]. Many
disadvantages: A. difficult to predict needs 3 (or more) years ahead. B.
we might block the next Milton, Shakespeare, or whatever. (I don't
accept this one.) C. Some of the hate-categories actually _do_
contribute significantly to the national economy - media for example.
(Whether those producing productively in the media actually have
media-studies degrees, I don't know.)
3. Better alternatives - trade apprenticeships, and the like.
Disadvantages: A. to do properly, should cost similar to university
anyway (and never will be because it _is_ seen as a lower-cost
alternative). B. Has always been (and I suspect will always been) seen
as inferior.
Post by Peter PercivalPost by BrritSkiso many of the Labour policies, attractive as they are.
I think the above is party- (and philosophy-)neutral, given the
economics of the country.
[]
Post by Peter PercivalPost by BrritSkiAgreed. She needs to dump Nick Timothy (author of the awful dementia
tax
See previous post.
Post by Peter PercivalThere is no such thing, just as there is no bedroom tax.
Well, not as such, but that was a very clever name for it by the
opposition. What they either didn't realise, or if you're cynical didn't
care about, was that there isn't a sufficient supply of alternative
one-less-bedroom accommodation: ideally it (reduction of benefit where
more accommodation was being paid for than is needed, which is what it
really is) should only apply where such alternative _is_ available, but
it is quite possible that the costs of administering that - keeping
registers of such accommodation [though one would have _thought_ they'd
be doing that anyway?], let alone the countless appeals - might exceed
any saving.
[I don't really know her.*]
* In fact, apart from Boris (and the PM), I don't think I could name
_any_ of the cabinet at the moment.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
What has happened since 1979, I suspect, is that the spotting of mistakes has
become entirely associated with mean-spiritedness, snobbishness and
judgementalism. But...can be...funny and interesting.
Lynn Truss, RT 2015/2/21-27