Current Affairs The Labour Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45421621

I see today that the current student loan 'bill' is around £118bn, which presumably if university was made free for all, this would be a direct expense on the tax payer? Given that it's Labour policy to offer free university education, where would that kind of money be found? I get that this total sum will be spread over many years, but even if you spread it over the entire 20 years of tuition fees being in place (which is obviously unrealistic as many of them will have been repaid), that's still £5.9bn a year.
 
Last edited:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45421621

I see today that the current student loan 'bill' is around £118bn, which presumably if university was made free for all, this would be a direct expense on the tax payer? Given that it's Labour policy to offer free university education, where would that kind of money be found? I get that this total sum will be spread over many years, but even if you spread it over the entire 20 years of tuition fees being in place (which is obviously unrealistic as many of them will have been repaid), that's still £9bn a year.
don't know were they would get the money from, maybe start at looking why the costs are so high when compared to the rest of the world, the cost to administrate it,or ask the Scottish government how they manage it.
Doesn't matter anyway , as the current likely hood of Labour ever getting power are pretty slim, if they couldn't beat May last time, with her dementia tax own goal, a appetite in the country looking for change at the time, the total collapse of the Liberal vote, and Corbyn riding a wave of optimism as the new face on the block .
Only chance they have is if the Tories go into an election with May as leader, after she cocks up brexit, and I think that is highly unlikely.
 
don't know were they would get the money from, maybe start at looking why the costs are so high when compared to the rest of the world, the cost to administrate it,or ask the Scottish government how they manage it.
Doesn't matter anyway , as the current likely hood of Labour ever getting power are pretty slim, if they couldn't beat May last time, with her dementia tax own goal, a appetite in the country looking for change at the time, the total collapse of the Liberal vote, and Corbyn riding a wave of optimism as the new face on the block .
Only chance they have is if the Tories go into an election with May as leader, after she cocks up brexit, and I think that is highly unlikely.

If you look at the global league tables, the only real rival to British universities are American ones, and fees here are quite a bit lower than there. Not sure about Scotland, hence why I thought I'd ask here as no doubt many of the Labour fans/members on here are more versed with their policies than I am, so are perhaps party to how they proposed to finance it, alongside the (much needed imo) focus on lifelong learning that they mentioned via their National Education Service thing.
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45421621

I see today that the current student loan 'bill' is around £118bn, which presumably if university was made free for all, this would be a direct expense on the tax payer? Given that it's Labour policy to offer free university education, where would that kind of money be found? I get that this total sum will be spread over many years, but even if you spread it over the entire 20 years of tuition fees being in place (which is obviously unrealistic as many of them will have been repaid), that's still £9bn a year.
Stop scaremongering, this is typical MSM destroying Corbyns policies.

Meanwhile, in reality this is a black hole that’s been forming for years and in all honesty has needed probing. Most people will get nowhere near paying off their student loans (my money owed is actually higher now after about 4 years of paying it than it was when I graduated.) so that money that was lent to me basically disappears. So, what are students paying for? There has been no change in the standard of instruction, but a lot of campuses are a lot newer and shinier looking. Obviously journal access etc costs a small fortune, but not to the level it’s been raised. Working on faculty it was amazing how much was being splurged by middle management - rather than use facilities on site they’d book conferences in the Lake District, business class on international flights etc, so the increase in fees has enabled uni administrators to live the life of riley.

So, if Labour has come to power, even more tax payer money would of been going into that pot. It might be a somewhat controversial decision, but I’d actually look to restrict admissions to university - there are far too many ‘useless’ degrees that lead nowhere (I know 4 people with drama degrees, none use them in their jobs) and too many people going to uni because they think they need to. Half of the first term of any new year was essentially spent as a counsellor to kids who had no clue what they were doing. So to create ‘free’ education to send more in just seems totally counterproductive.

So, in short, without dramatic reform there’s no way a free system wouldn’t cripple the country and even now the system isn’t economically viable.
 
"The Corbyn surge has brought in troglodytes who have dwelt in dark basements for the past few decades, consumed by righteous hatred not just of Tories but also of Blairites and other traitors. "

https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/09/08/britains-equilibrium-of-incompetence

I must say, that made me chuckle this morning lol
War criminal's statement:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45438855

Surrender accepted.

All these years you've been hiding your flair for comic timing under a bushel Dave.
 
All these years you've been hiding your flair for comic timing under a bushel Dave.
What a strange article for the Economist. It states that the LP is going into decline and yet produces no facts to back that assertion up. It's almopst like they're not using facts because the assertion is untrue and the reverse is the case.
 
What a strange article for the Economist. It states that the LP is going into decline and yet produces no facts to back that assertion up. It's almopst like they're not using facts because the assertion is untrue and the reverse is the case.

You're basing your assertion that Labour are going great guns on things that only really matter to the Labour party (membership numbers etc.). The Economist article is basing their assertion on their competence in opposition. You're pleased that you're 2nd in a 2 horse race, I get that, but it's not really much of an accomplishment. I also get that you're more interested in Labour being in power than being an effective opposition. You're as much a Labour tribalist as you are an Everton tribalist, but most people aren't of the same mindset.
 
You're basing your assertion that Labour are going great guns on things that only really matter to the Labour party (membership numbers etc.). The Economist article is basing their assertion on their competence in opposition. You're pleased that you're 2nd in a 2 horse race, I get that, but it's not really much of an accomplishment. I also get that you're more interested in Labour being in power than being an effective opposition. You're as much a Labour tribalist as you are an Everton tribalist, but most people aren't of the same mindset.

Aren't Labour ahead in the polls?
 
Does Blair not realise every time he opens his gob that Corbyn gets more support as people hate him so much?

Only time he should speak should be when he is on trial for the deaths of so many people in Iraq when he took us to war for no reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top