Falling in Love...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I ask again, what is your solution to this mess, seeing as you're more than happy to shoot down the attempts of others to try and fix things?

Start with a nice big increase on the top rate (or rates) of income tax. Then add the Mansion tax the LibDems campaigned for and have since gone quiet about.

That's nothing miraculous, of course. It doesn't take a miracle.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oh, and scrap Trident. None of this "not like-for-like" blathering. Scrap it. Bye-bye.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oh yes. Tax capital gains at the same rates as income. Not a flat 28%. As income. Which, by some bizarre coincidence was another LibDem manifesto pledge.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So the LibDems to be the majority party... so basically, a miracle

[C0ckney]

Personally, what I'd like to see is the Coalition scrapping the idea that the NHS should be ring-fenced and making some cuts there as well.

If the Lib Dems have to swallow some kind of u-turn on tuition fees, then it seems only right that the Tories should make a u-turn on the NHS!

yeah i'd support this. the NHS budget has more than tripled since 1997 (£37 billion in 1997 to £120 billion in 2009). i find it hard to believe that there isn't room for some economies there. of course it would be political suicide, the labour party would seize on it, unions and pressure groups would go ape****. cameron and clegg would be portrayed as NHS destroying grim reapers, gleefully sending pensioners to their deaths or some such.

the problem is that once the government starts spending money on something, it's very hard for them to stop without all the wailing that civilisation will collapse as result of any cuts to the 'vital' (and by vital, i of course mean, any) spending. and people fall for it as well.

talking of government waste, here's phillip green telling us what we always suspected. government waste 'shocking'

The government could save billions of pounds a year if it improved "shocking" spending processes, Topshop owner Sir Philip Green has said.

Sir Philip has reviewed government spending, and says it is failing to make full use of its buying power.

He said no business could survive the level of money that was wasted from the £191bn of spending he reviewed.

He believes billions could be saved if the government did simple things like checking spending properly.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Without even looking at the NHS, they could simply close all public sector final salary pension schemes to new contributions, and switch everyone in them to money purchase schemes- which is what's already happened to most of the private sector.

See, Mobius? That's not a miracle either. That whole "the only alternative to our way is magic, miracles and results mysteriously coming out of arses" argument is risible.

[MikeH]

Yeah, there are plenty of targets for cuts. But this government, with Lib Dem support, is repeatedly targeting cuts that will affect the poorest not the richest.

All Laz's points of alternative targets are good.

[MikeH]

They estimate every £1 spent on universities returns £2.50 to the economy.
And that every £1 spent on science returns £10 to the economy.

You make severe cut these and your future as a leader in technology is gone. We're already losing our best scientists to overseas institutions, which means the attractiveness of our universities goes down and the quality of our graduates goes down. The world is competitive. Businesses will move elsewhere, where there is better talent to employ.

Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Pricing intelligent people out of university, is a stupid thing to do.

We don't need 50% of people going to university and we do need more people going into vocational courses. But this strategy, seemingly designed to create a series of rich white dominated super universities for the rich, in an two tier American style, is the least fair, least sensible course. Kind of an 11+ for 18 year olds where the rich go to university and the poor go to being apprentices.

Horrendous.

[MOBIUS]

I don't have the time to properly reply now, but here is something for you to digest direct from Vince Cable:

Dear MOBIUS

Taking decisions about Higher Education funding isn’t easy, particularly in times of fiscal constraint. And I know that some of what was announced yesterday will be difficult for some party members.

But in supporting the thrust of Lord Browne’s review I believe this Government is taking the difficult decisions needed to deliver a fair deal to both universities and students. We have obtained a much more progressive system of payment for graduate contributions than currently exists.

I will outline what the Government will put forward following the spending review next week, but Lord Browne’s proposals would be a major reform of higher education funding. It effectively replaces Labour’s unfair one-size fits-all formula with a fairer plan which reflects students’ different circumstances - the poorest 30% of graduates will pay less than they do now. No one would pay back a penny until they are earning close to the average salary and those who earn more from their degree will pay back more.

I have welcomed plans that will scrap up-front costs for part-time students, making a valuable element of our education available to all and ending the disgraceful situation in which they were treated unfairly; paying upfront.

In the near future I will come forward with further detailed proposals which will make it attractive for students from families of modest means to go to university.

As in the report, we are considering a threshold of £7,000 for university fees, as this is the only realistic way to secure the funding our universities desperately need. Many universities and colleges may well decide to charge less than that, since there is clearly scope for greater efficiency and innovation in the way universities operate. Two year ordinary degrees are one approach that should be considered.

Lord Browne suggests there should be circumstances under which universities can price their courses above this threshold. He suggests this would be conditional on universities demonstrating that funds would be invested in scholarships and bursaries for students from less privileged backgrounds and in raising the quality of teaching and learning. The Government is considering this aspect of the review carefully.

I have explained in a previous email to members why I did not think a pure Graduate Tax proposal would be fair or would work. However I am determined to make those who can afford to pay more do so and that those who do less well paid jobs pay less. At my request as a Liberal Democrat Minister, Lord Browne has come up with a specific proposal to lift the threshold at which repayment of student loans starts to £21,000 and to introduce a variable rate of interest on loans to protect low earning graduates.

The Government will go further than the Browne recommendations and come forward with proposals for exempting the poorest students from graduate contributions for some or all of their studies. Making university accessible for all is a key priority for this Government as part of our drive for social mobility. And we are considering how to discourage very affluent families and graduates buying their way out of the system.

The Coalition Government’s proposals will create a level playing field for part-time students, help those from less privileged backgrounds get to universities and ensure that those with the broadest shoulders contribute more. It is a fair and progressive policy that will build an equitable Higher Education system to last.

Best wishes,



Vince Cable MP
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills


PS You can read my full statement HERE and the Browne report HERE

Obviously the plans are not optimum, the Lib Dems HAVE gone back on the basic premise of their pledge, which I am extremely disappointed about. However, I do think both you and Laz need to have a good look at them and understand exactly what it is you find so terrible, before jumping to conclusions...

I'll address all the other stuff when I have time, but right now I don't want to make any ill-considered comments before I have all the facts before me...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Obviously the plans are not optimum, the Lib Dems HAVE gone back on the basic premise of their pledge, which I am extremely disappointed about. However, I do think both you and Laz need to have a good look at them and understand exactly what it is you find so terrible, before jumping to conclusions...

Already considered it, thanks. Considered years ago, in fact, just as the LibDems clearly did in view of their opposition to this issue which stretches back for years.

Incidentally, nice attempt to patronise us there. Just the right approach to take with long-term LibDem voters who support the party on political principles, not brand loyalty.

[Hauldren Collider]

Oh yes. Tax capital gains at the same rates as income. Not a flat 28%. As income. Which, by some bizarre coincidence was another LibDem manifesto pledge.

I'm told that taxing capital gains is a really bad idea. It's highly distortionary.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

And yet we taxed it before this time, and will continue to do so after.

[C0ckney]

when i went to university, which wasn't all that long ago, the local authority paid for all my tuition fees. because my parents didn't have any money. i still had to get student loans for living expenses and stuff. so the poorest didn't have to pay the fees back then. i don't know if the system has changed in this respect though.

if you switch everyone in public sector final salary schemes to money purchase ones, leaving aside how unrealistic a proposal that is. then it seems to me that you're taking money from mostly low paid public sector workers, to subsidise the university education of middle class children. doesn't sound very fair to me.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

if you switch everyone in public sector final salary schemes to money purchase ones, leaving aside how unrealistic a proposal that is. then it seems to me that you're taking money from mostly low paid public sector workers, to subsidise the university education of middle class children. doesn't sound very fair to me.

Most private sector workers are low paid too. Why should they pay more taxes to pay unsustainable pensions for the public sector?

[C0ckney]

i don't deny that something will have to be done about public sector pensions in the future. i'm simply saying that doing what you described in your post is a) not practical and b) not a good solution for university funding.