Current Affairs The Labour Party

[ToffeeTim]

Apologies for the late reply, was at work:



Not "hard-left", indeed may not even be Labour given the timeline is full of retweeted Lib Dem stuff (with admittedly one or two Corbyn retweets as well). Actually does live in the constituency, though.



Paul Unwin - not hard left, seems anti-Corbyn judging by the timeline full of "Corbyn GO" stuff and retweets of Dan Hodges
Robin Levett - politics aren't clear, but not hard left



One or two retweets of Momentum stuff, rather more tweets in support of Corbyn during the leadership campaign.



Lives in Aylesbury and appears to be a Lib Dem. Not hard-left, judging by the timeline.



So from your quickly-found examples, all of which date from after she was re-selected (and after your original post, fwiw), only one of them comes from someone who has previously re-tweeted Momentum stuff, and there isn't anything to say he is part of Momentum or lives / is active in the constituency.

This therefore seems to boil down therefore to a "guy in Clapham who campaigns for Labour", which perhaps may explain things given that (a) Lambeth Labour is dominated by the Progress faction and (b) its them that have tried getting rid of Kate Hoey in the past, and may well be right now given that Mandelson is actively trying to unseat her.

Do you think its fair that a party within a party like Progress should be trying to take out a popular and hardworking MP like Hoey?

I find it extremely weird that members of a party would actively seeking to help one of their incumbent MPs lose. That to me is symptomatic of the narrow mindedness of elements of the party. Labour used to be more open to different view points. At least that's how it seemed to me.

 

[Tree13]

I agree - though I would point you to the people who actually did that, and why they did it (basically to reduce the NEETS / unemployment figures).

Well aware that the comprehensive devaluation of undergraduate degrees came about as a direct and predictable result of Labour's attempts to make the unemployment figures look better. Furthermore, it also provided them with a chunk of young voters - people who would graduate with degrees but still be unemployed afterwards and, better still from the party's perspective, would have been softened up by exposure to the mad left ranting that is student Labour politics. The campaign spending Labour pours into university campuses up and down the country dwarfs all the other parties combined.

Just like unfettered spending on welfare, or dropping all immigration controls, Labour's higher education policy has to date actually been nothing more than a calculated attempt to create a swathe of voters who are reliant on the state and therefore will vote for the party that advocates "big government" and high taxes.

 

[peteblue]

I'm in tears over the manifesto leak.

The policies that my forefathers fought so hard for are now there.

Proudest day as a Labour Party member.

Yep, he's dragged Labour back to the 1970's.......

 

[zzr45]

Arguably, free university for all would be seriously damaging to the current standing of the UK universities.

As someone who has worked as a lecturer I could foresee a situation where universities would have to curtail much of the research and innovation that they do (which is what attracts foreign students and increases the prestige of our unis) as the funding wouldn't be able to match what comes in currently.

Add in to the fact that it opens up the ability for those already in the workforce to jump back into uni whenever they feel, there would be a massive strain on the system. The already watered down degrees would become even more meaningless.

 

[Gouldy]

Supporting the removal of tuition fees is actually hugely regressive. Currently students pay back their loan, but only once they are earning a high wage as a result of their degree. If we scrap them then the graduates would pay back nothing extra regardless of how wealthy they become with aid of a degree.

I've got all that debt but don't earn enough yet to pay anything back. But if/when I do earn over the threshold then I feel it's right I start paying back as lots don't have the privilege of going to university. Why should hard working people who didn't go pay for my privilege?

Free at point of use, but you pay back when you've clearly benefitted financially from your education. IMO this is as close to fair as we'll get. So much myth and bollocks said around this issue tho.

If you actually read how it will be funded then you shouldn't realize it won't affect hard working (class) citizens - it would be paid for either with an increase in NI tax on high earners (probably £80,000 and above) or via increase in corp. tax.

Germany has tuition free universities. Norway has tuition free university. As does Denmark, and Sweden too, to name but a few. No one has issues with high schools being free because it was considered necessary to require a high school standard education. Times have changed, and generally speaking, that standard is now not enough. A huge amount of entry level jobs now require a degree, and thus (generally speaking), enrollment into a university is required, thus there should be no financial barrier in the way of obtaining a degree.

 

[orly]

Blimey

It's like the Longest Suicide Note in History was just an introduction and someone has found a pen.

Hopefully Paul Flowers or whatever his name is can help oversee the National Bank.

 

[Tree13]

Arguably, free university for all would be seriously damaging to the current standing of the UK universities.

As someone who has worked as a lecturer I could foresee a situation where universities would have to curtail much of the research and innovation that they do (which is what attracts foreign students and increases the prestige of our unis) as the funding wouldn't be able to match what comes in currently.

Add in to the fact that it opens up the ability for those already in the workforce to jump back into uni whenever they feel, there would be a massive strain on the system. The already watered down degrees would become even more meaningless.

Presumably the scrapping of tuition fees would have to come in alongside some sort of measures to reduce the number of UK students applying to university though. The state's coffers simply wouldn't stretch far enough to pay an extra £9k per student, at current levels, surely? I imagine that the academic threshold for entry would have to be adjusted upwards.

Just like "free' healthcare, "free" university education is only really free at the point of use. There is still a cost in providing it and if that cost is not kept under control then ways invariably have to be found to raise extra money to pay for it.

 

[ToffeeTim]

If you actually read how it will be funded then you shouldn't realize it won't affect hard working (class) citizens - it would be paid for either with an increase in NI tax on high earners (probably £80,000 and above) or via increase in corp. tax.

Germany has tuition free universities. Norway has tuition free university. As does Denmark, and Sweden too, to name but a few. No one has issues with high schools being free because it was considered necessary to require a high school standard education. Times have changed, and generally speaking, that standard is now not enough. A huge amount of entry level jobs now require a degree, and thus (generally speaking), enrollment into a university is required, thus there should be no financial barrier in the way of obtaining a degree.

There is not a snowballs chance of raising a third of the money needed. In practice it would have to be huge borrowing and quantitative easing.

Not once in the past hundred years have significant increases to top rates of tax brought in more receipts. Money actually goes down. Even the nationalisation of industries costs tens of billions. There's over a trillion pounds of extra spending. It's an extremely anti business manifesto. Just what we need when businesses are thinking of leaving.

Our kids would pay for this.

EDIT: I've already outlined a number of times why the tuition fees rules are totally fair, and I say that as someone who graduated 2 years ago. The idea that it's a huge barrier and a financial barrier is pure myth. It's not. You pay not one penny at the time. You get a maintenance loan, and the less well off get a grant too. Graduates, once earning a good wages, should start paying. Anyone who says tuition fees, in their current system are unfair is either utterly deluded, or a sponger.

 

[Tree13]

If you actually read how it will be funded then you shouldn't realize it won't affect hard working (class) citizens - it would be paid for either with an increase in NI tax on high earners (probably £80,000 and above) or via increase in corp. tax.

Germany has tuition free universities. Norway has tuition free university. As does Denmark, and Sweden too, to name but a few. No one has issues with high schools being free because it was considered necessary to require a high school standard education. Times have changed, and generally speaking, that standard is now not enough. A huge amount of entry level jobs now require a degree, and thus (generally speaking), enrollment into a university is required, thus there should be no financial barrier in the way of obtaining a degree.

You're putting the cart before the horse here I think.

Why do a huge number of entry-level jobs require a degree? Especially where, traditionally, they did not? It is because a far greater proportion of society holds a degree now compared to the situation thirty years ago. It's now a viable criterion to place on recruitment, because it will weed out a large chunk of applicants whilst still still leaving a big enough pool from which to hire.

If everyone has a degree, they become totally devalued and pressure is put on degree holders to study further, to masters' level and beyond, for jobs that traditionally only required a degree... a situation that is now creeping into teacher training, for instance.

On your very last remark, I will say only this: if there is no financial barrier to obtaining a degree then the system needs a strong academic barrier (i.e. entry grades need to be high) otherwise you simply create a system that devalues the end product.

 

[zzr45]

Presumably the scrapping of tuition fees would have to come in alongside some sort of measures to reduce the number of UK students applying to university though. The state's coffers simply wouldn't stretch far enough to pay an extra £9k per student, at current levels, surely? I imagine that the academic threshold for entry would have to be adjusted upwards.

Just like "free' healthcare, "free" university education is only really free at the point of use. There is still a cost in providing it and if that cost is not kept under control then ways invariably have to be found to raise extra money to pay for it.

You'd think so. But then, how is that not just shooting themselves in the foot? By removing tuition fees the argument is that it allows the poorest echelon of society reach university. But then if we were to increase the academic threshold surely the less academically gifted won't make it to university, and you can guess which social strata these tend to sit in..

So, do we go with an increase in 'quotas' where universities must take X amount of lower quality students at the expense of those who belong at university? What happens to those unable to get in? Do they not take the jobs of those lower on the academic ladder? Do they disappear to foreign lands to seek an education instead?

This is the problem with ideological 'equality' - it is absolutely unsustainable.

 

[nsno-chris]

You're putting the cart before the horse here I think.

Why do a huge number of entry-level jobs require a degree? Especially where, traditionally, they did not?

If everyone has a degree, they become totally devalued and pressure is put on degree holders to study further, to masters' level and beyond, for jobs that traditionally only required a degree... a situation that is now creeping into teacher training, for instance.

Degrees are already devalued, the standard of learning is so low. I've had to put a qualified professional on a basic English course, they had no understanding of grammar and thought "I'll" was spelt "il".

A degree used to be held in high esteem, not anymore. I'd rather employ a school leaver, at least they won't have an attitude that the world owes them a living

 

[Joey66]

There is not a snowballs chance of raising a third of the money needed. In practice it would have to be huge borrowing and quantitative easing.

Not once in the past hundred years have significant increases to top rates of tax brought in more receipts. Money actually goes down. Even the nationalisation of industries costs tens of billions. There's over a trillion pounds of extra spending. It's an extremely anti business manifesto. Just what we need when businesses are thinking of leaving.

Our kids would pay for this.

EDIT: I've already outlined a number of times why the tuition fees rules are totally fair, and I say that as someone who graduated 2 years ago. The idea that it's a huge barrier and a financial barrier is pure myth. It's not. You pay not one penny at the time. You get a maintenance loan, and the less well off get a grant too. Graduates, once earning a good wages, should start paying. Anyone who says tuition fees, in their current system are unfair is either utterly deluded, or a sponger.

Its utopia that leaked draft memo - nothing in it I do not like ..... but raising corporation tax by one third would see an exodus of companies leaving the UK - USA willing to drop the corporation tax to 15% the new French prime minister taking in reducing business tax in France -
its pie in the sky going after tax avoidance would have been a better way to pay for some of these things - chasing companies away of our shores is a certainty!
1970 politics by a 1970;s leader in Corbyn - no centre ground just hard left policies - somethin in Europe that is unelectable never mind in the UK!

 

[peteblue]

It's a joke manifesto written by a joke politician that will deliver a massive conservative majority. What is the point....

 

[tsubaki]

Anyone who says tuition fees, in their current system are unfair is either utterly deluded, or a sponger.

Sorry, weren't you saying earlier that people wouldn't have to pay most of it back?

 

[ashwuk76]

It's a joke manifesto written by a joke politician that will deliver a massive conservative majority. What is the point....

So are you saying all those things shouldn't be done for the good of society? Not if they can be done.