Gordon Brown Stands Down As Labour Leader

[kalniel]

Wait what?

Your advocating charging people to have a higher education, promotes inclusiveness.

Nope, I'm advocating increasing capacity promotes inclusiveness. That doesn't come without cost, and there are few fairer ways than to only make those who benefit from university pay for it (once they are earning enough).

How about instead of having a loan, administered by the only lending body not regulated by the FSA, we could have some kind of tax, applied to only people who earn't above a certain threshold. We could call it income tax.

The argument is why should apprentices pay the specific costs of towards me getting a science degree? Better to make the people who benefit from it contribute.

Or we could allow uni's to charge, and then rebate, that way the poor people will stay in portsmouth where they belong. Meanwhile we could have silly figures of 50% having degrees (which industry has no demand for)

That's a similar argument to that against upstream research. Just because you don't need it to solve a specific problem doesn't mean it isn't value for money in the long run.

and as such uni's will churn out worthless courses which unless you have a family member or friend to tell you that media studies is bull****, will force people into debt, at 3rd rate institutes due to rebates making those the only affordable option, with a degree that is worthless.

For starters you don't actually need to take that much of a loan for university, especially if you get a job in downtime. Then what you do borrow you don't have to pay back until you are earning above a threshold. So I don't buy the forcing people into debt argument - technically, yes, a student loan is debt, but it's a financially beneficial one in most cases.

[McMav]

It was only an idea from a thosand years or so ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England

But you can surely understand how the party whip system and the chronic nepotism of the Labour party over the last 13 years is far worse affair than the chronic corruption of the tories they replaced!

I agree that English policy should be voted for by English MP's but funding for these policys has to be voted on by all MP's or should only Scottish MP's vote on Scottish budget only Welsh ones on Welsh until there is a separate English government setup.

I know when the tories went out we had interest rates at 16% (great for the rich with savings) not so good for the poorer even middle classes with mortgages.

I'm not a fan of any of the parties since the expenses fiasco. None of them have whats good for the country and heart its whats good for them. A balanced parliament might make them have to work for the country otherwise there will be another election in 12-18 months (thats what I expect)

[kalniel]

I know when the tories went out we had interest rates at 16% (great for the rich with savings) not so good for the poorer even middle classes with mortgages.

To their credit the Tories have quietly admitted some of Mr Brown's ideas were good, including devolving some monetary power to the Bank of England, so I think it's likely they'd keep that arrangement.

Obviously not the only factor at play because the bank might be forced to up interest rates (as they did in the housing boom before the bust), but it should help.

[TheAnimus]

Nope, I'm advocating increasing capacity promotes inclusiveness. That doesn't come without cost, and there are few fairer ways than to only make those who benefit from university pay for it (once they are earning enough).

But it doesn't its still only a finate % that the 'industry' or the world if you will wants to have a degree, you can't just create supply without demand, all that happens is people get fooled into thinking they have something decent and worthwhile when really they don't.

The argument is why should apprentices pay the specific costs of towards me getting a science degree? Better to make the people who benefit from it contribute.

This is something that irks me, the idea that someone who reports to a manager shouldn't contribute anything to help have that manager in that place. Ultimately everyone answers to something or someone, it feeds them, as such it is in the interest of the apprentice who is earning 40k per year as a higher rate tax payer to have some of that money going into meritocratic higher education.

That's a similar argument to that against upstream research. Just because you don't need it to solve a specific problem doesn't mean it isn't value for money in the long run. For starters you don't actually need to take that much of a loan for university, especially if you get a job in downtime. Then what you do borrow you don't have to pay back until you are earning above a threshold. So I don't buy the forcing people into debt argument - technically, yes, a student loan is debt, but it's a financially beneficial one in most cases.

No because research should be new, churning out 10,000 graduates in media studies mearly compounds failure.

[Saracen]

I didnt know there was an English Parliament. Perhaps you should have a devolved government aswell which gets a budget from central government which it can use to set its health policy and the like.

That's the whole point.

There are a number of issues where control over policy is devolved, and yet Westminster MPs (for example from Scotland) vote on issues in Westminster which don't affect their own MPs because they're controlled in their own constituencies by Holyrood.

The attitude in England is that we're about the only major region that doesn't have any form of devolution ..... and we're annoyed about it.

It's simple - no Westminster MP should be able to vote on any issue where that issue is controlled by a devolved assembly or Parliament in which his constituency lies.

Where an issue is dealt with by a devolved Parliament, such as (fictitiously) Butterfly Breeding, if Holyrood controls butterfly breeding policy in Scotland, Scottish MPs have no vote on that subject in Westminster. Welsh and NI MPs, however, can vote because their devolved assemblies haven't yet been given control over butterfly policy. And if butterfly policy is then transferred to the NI assembly as part of a transfer of powers, NI MPs can no longer vote on that issue in Westminster.

The so-called West Lothian question has been utterly responsible for a huge level of enthusiasm for Sottish independence among the English. My personal view is simple. I'd rather the union was a union, but if (and I stress IF) the Scottish people want independence then they should get it. And sooner rather than later. If, on the other hand, they don't want it then put the issue to bed ASAP. So ... give the Scots a referendum. While we're at it, let's have the rest of us have a referendum on independence from Scotland.

But either give Scotland it's independence if that's what it's people want, or sort out the West Lothian question, because it IS breeding resentment down here, big time. One or the other.

[TheAnimus]

I know when the tories went out we had interest rates at 16% (great for the rich with savings) not so good for the poorer even middle classes with mortgages.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/mfsd/iadb/Repo.asp

Basically a consequence of sorting out the problems of the previous incumbents.

It wasn't until the greenspan puts that people thought such low rates would be serviceable.

[kalniel]

But it doesn't its still only a finate % that the 'industry' or the world if you will wants to have a degree, you can't just create supply without demand, all that happens is people get fooled into thinking they have something decent and worthwhile when really they don't.

No because research should be new, churning out 10,000 graduates in media studies mearly compounds failure.

I think I see a key factor that might explain our different viewpoints - you seem to be of the belief (and apologies if I'm wrong) that the subject of degree is the important benefit to society/future earnings/industry/whatever. I'm not quite the same - the mere fact of going to university and studying for something in an assessable manner is something that I believe sets you up better for life, and even if the particular industry of interest does not need the specific knowledge gained in a degree subject, it can still benefit from the positive characteristics imparted through university, thus increasing our competitiveness nationwide and generating more wealth etc etc. Look at accountants - how many of them specifically study accountancy at uni, yet a university degree is often needed to get onto graduate training schemes of the big companies.

[TheAnimus]

I think I see a key factor that might explain our different viewpoints - you seem to be of the belief (and apologies if I'm wrong) that the subject of degree is the important benefit to society/future earnings/industry/whatever. I'm not quite the same - the mere fact of going to university and studying for something in an assessable manner is something that I believe sets you up better for life, and even if the particular industry of interest does not need the specific knowledge gained in a degree subject, it can still benefit from the positive characteristics imparted through university, thus increasing our competitiveness nationwide and generating more wealth etc etc. Look at accountants - how many of them specifically study accountancy at uni, yet a university degree is often needed to get onto graduate training schemes of the big companies.

I'm not saying that people have to work in a field that they studied, just that there has to be some merit in the field of study. Classics is generally a fairly well regarded subject, yet has little application.

My point is by raising the number, they have put nothing in place to maintain or raise the quality, as a result a race to the bottom seems to have ensued, especially judging by the last lot of graddies I had the pleasure of interviewing.

As a result you now see people systematically dismissing the CV pile based on the institute, and the course title.

The downside is there are many 3rd rate unis, which for certain courses are first class, those people will often be swept in with the wash.

The differentiation factors the industry demands are now based on prejudice, rather than clear honest achievements, this makes it harder for social mobility as key concepts are whispered, rather than transparently specified.

[kalniel]

I'm not saying that people have to work in a field that they studied, just that there has to be some merit in the field of study. Classics is generally a fairly well regarded subject, yet has little application.

My point is by raising the number, they have put nothing in place to maintain or raise the quality, as a result a race to the bottom seems to have ensued, especially judging by the last lot of graddies I had the pleasure of interviewing.

But on the other hand I believe that while the bottom of the pile might have grown a bit deeper, the top has also grown taller - I was blown away by the last lot of graduates I worked with, and while some time has passed since I was there, I was among the top once.

But I get your point that there maybe more additional places at less great institutions than the top ones, which I suspect is true, but it is the case that there have also been additional places at the top ones.

As a result you now see people systematically dismissing the CV pile based on the institute, and the course title.

When compared to other institutes and course titles, but not compared to people who haven't gone to university.

The downside is there are many 3rd rate unis, which for certain courses are first class, those people will often be swept in with the wash.

The differentiation factors the industry demands are now based on prejudice, rather than clear honest achievements, this makes it harder for social mobility as key concepts are whispered, rather than transparently specified.

That would be a worry, but I'm not sure it's the case. My field is science so I'm not so knowledgeable about other fields, but in science a first class course/department is not at all tarnished by other courses, and there is even sufficient peer assessment outside of university that a good scientist will most likely still have a chance to shine.

[Saracen]

My respect for John Reid went up substantially after watching him say that.

Yeeeeessss ..... but ....

... you knew there'd be a "but" didn't you?

It won't have escaped regulars that I have a mildly () sceptical view of politicians. Given that, I question why he (and others, including according to reports, Jack Straw and several other Cabinet ministers) he said that.

There are three obvious reasons :-

1) Moral legitimacy of such an arrangement
2) Narrow party interest
3) Practical aspects of Commons operations

We know what he said, but we don't know why he said it. We might also know why he said he said it, but he's a politician and it isn't necessarily the real reason. It;s also quite possible that it;s a mix of the above, and maybe other things too.

Look at each of those more carefully, because they aren't entirely separate.

1) Moral legitimacy. The argument is clearly that while the Tories didn't win an outright majority, they did have a very good result, and against an FPTP system that, because of the loading of constituency boundaries, is clearly stacked against them.

So :-

a) The Tories got more votes, and more seats. They gained nearly 2 million votes over 2005, and Labour dropped nearly 1 million. That makes it hard to justify Labour staying in power.

b) In this election, compare the Tory position to Labour's 2005 position.

The Tories got more votes this time than Labour did in 2005 (10.7m compared to 9.5m). They also got more as a percentage of the turnout (36.1% compared to Labour's 2005 35.2%).

So, compared to the vote that got Labour a 33 seat majority in 2005, the Tories beat them fairly soundly both on actual votes, and percentage of votes.

Labour are harping on now, because it;s electorally convenient, about being PR fans but under PR, the Tories would have won as largest party in 2005. I don;t remember Labour being so enthusiastic about AV then.

Therefore, it would be a perfectly reasonable moral stand for a Labour politician to say that the Tories have as much or more mandate now than Labour did in 2005 if you adjust for that built-in Labour advantage in constituency boundaries.

The Tories, IIRC, have to get about 6% more than Labour just to break even. They did very well, but not well enough because of that built-in bias.

So it's a principled position, and that may be where John Reid and others are coming from, to say that while it wasn't a clean win, by just about any metric other than the seats that comes out of a biased system, they have every bit as much mandate as Labour did in 2005 and that to rig up some back room deal to retain power is an insult to the will of the people.

2) Narrow party interest.

This picks up on the last point of 1). To do what might be seen by the electorate as jury rigging to gain power might well bite them in the butt at the next election.

3) Pragmatism of Commons operations.

The Tories and LDs can put together an overall majority of about 40 by themselves. Labour cannot do that, no matter who they get on-board (unless they manage to cobble a deal together with the Tories and I'm not holding my breath on either side swallowing that). For Labour to get a majority, they need the LDs and several of the other parties and even then, will only just get it. It will be, at best, fragile.

There have also been some interesting comments coming from some Scottish Labour MPS who, according to the comments of those MPS, are not going to work with the SNP. They are in a deadly fight with the SNP and dealing with them in Westminster might well hurt them very badly in the future.

Labour can't even rely on it's own backbenchers, and some of it's front-benchers (including Cabinet members) are giving unattributed negative comments. Labour/LD would have such a narrow majority that they're going to have to fight just about every single vote to get it through, and you can bank on the Tories to work flat out to make it uncomfortable as hell. What happens, for instance, when a vote is due on something Labour want that one of the other parties is opposed to, or merely ambivalent about? Are they going to ensure they show up for every vote, or are they going to be rather lacklustre about Labour measures? What happens if there's an "urgent" constituency matter that requires their attention, or as someone pointed out, a foreign "fact-finding" junket that just might run on a day or two unexpectedly.

Labour/LDs majority, however they put it together, is going to be narrow at the very best and it doesn't take much in the way of what the army used to called "dumb insolence" for it to fall apart. No matter what Clegg and the party hierarchy sign up to, can he get his members in the chamber in force, every time?

Of course, many of the same objections apply to a Tory/LD coalition too, but the difference is a majority of 40 (or nearly 50 if the DUP join in, as they may well do on a policy basis, not a formal one), as opposed to not much better than a half dozen or so.

It is a great fear among some Labour MPs (and I'm not guessing at this) that such a deal could prove disastrous for them in the longer term, and they're better off in opposition.


So yeah, GheeTsar, it's reflects well on those that have reservations, but just how well it reflects very much depends on their motivation, which we obviously can only infer or guess at. It might still merely be self-interest .... and given my cynicism about politicians ....

[Saracen]

.... Look at accountants - how many of them specifically study accountancy at uni, yet a university degree is often needed to get onto graduate training schemes of the big companies.

As an accountant with a non-accountancy degree, my answer to that would be very few. Having said that, my experience was a long time ago and it may have changed.

On the induction course when I started my Chartered accountancy training, no more than a handful (maybe half a dozen) out of several hundred at my firm had studied anything directly relating to accountancy. It wasn't even particularly encouraged that you did so. Many firms preferred people with a broader range than that, and besides, the "flavour" of accountancy varies. What you'll study as a Chartered accountant varies from certified, and varies a lot from Public Finance and Management accountancy. At the very least, the emphasis is different, and by and large, often accounting standards and practices are too. Certainly, the nature of day to day work is very different.

My intake had a vast variation, from biologists and botanists to engineers, physicists and mathematicians, to historians, geographers, literature and language students, economists and so on.

And my view is that you are right and that that principle is commonplace, outside of specialities. For a career in medicine, economics won't help you much, and classic languages or botany won't set you up well for designing skyscrapers or mucking about with the building blocks of the universe in a particle accelerator. For that type of speciality, a relevant first degree may well be mandatory, but otherwise, the rigours of doing the degree (and doing well) are more important in many cases than the subject matter.

Having said that, the rigours of some disciplines are certainly perceived as being far more challenging that others, and I have to say, "media studies" is not going to impress a lot of recruiters a whole lot.