Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Abernathy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 10:41 am The Absolute Boy was on Peston just the other night. Thankfully, Liz Kendall was also on hand to mitigate any potential damage by publicly handing him his arse.

The cult are in full hissy mode over Kendall’s lies about the great man

Youngian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 5:36 pm

Abernathy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 13, 2023 10:41 am The Absolute Boy was on Peston just the other night. Thankfully, Liz Kendall was also on hand to mitigate any potential damage by publicly handing him his arse.

The cult are in full hissy mode over Kendall’s lies about the great man

Would that be lies as in things that aren't true, or lies as in doubting his infallibility?

I saw a Trot today somewhere on social media actually urging people to complain formally to ITN. About what? “Liz was cruel to Jezziah” ??!

I’m glad it was Kendall, certain Labour MPs wouldn’t have said anything to him.

Predictable stuff here. He's been told plenty of times who abolishing fees would benefit, but who can argue with a "fundamental right"? Which HE has never been, and wasn't in his manifestoes (otherwise presumably he'd have budgeted for 100% attendance). He's been all over, quite rightly, HE pay disputes. And the upshot of that experience is "let's abolish fees, apparently.

Be fair though, he doesn't just promise everyone free stuff. I'd say childcare was a much bigger priority right now. I can't remember it being such a priority in his manifestos.

Scandinavia, Germany, and the Baltics for zip and France for fluppence. Tuition fees are an economic absurdity and ambitious countries know that.

Those countries make people on modest incomes pay more tax than we do.

Corbyn's policy was to make nobody on less than £70k pay a penny more tax. If you're going to do that then you have to choose.

I also think HE is something of a special case in that it isn't universal, it's very expensive, and there's a personal financial benefit from doing it. I don't think any other government service is quite like that, so fees are appropriate.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 11:16 pm Predictable stuff here. He's been told plenty of times who abolishing fees would benefit, but who can argue with a "fundamental right"? Which HE has never been, and wasn't in his manifestoes (otherwise presumably he'd have budgeted for 100% attendance). He's been all over, quite rightly, HE pay disputes. And the upshot of that experience is "let's abolish fees, apparently.

This is exactly why I think Corbyn is in many ways delighted to be out of the big job and would have been delighted not to win any elections. Because this is piss easy - yes to free things for all that are broadly popular with the right groups who will continue to say how wonderful he is, safe in the knowledge he will never have to put a moment’s thought into how such a thing might be paid for, what the knock-on effects of making it free might be, and what other service will have to lose out/cost will have to rise to cover it.

I know full well Labour being unfairly treated in terms of economics and being asked to cost things when the Tories don’t get questioned is a genuine thing. But this sort of thing is probably why it’s *still* a thing.

In the 2017 manifesto, he happily cut benefits to pay for free university. I think that says a lot.

No surprise to see Jez signing this nonsense, which if I understand it, demands that the WASPI generation get paid state pensions from 60.

What the heck would the cost of that be, and how can it possibly be a priority*? Maybe the cost is £54bn seeing he and McDonnell pulled that figure out of their arse in the last week of the general election campaign. A good one for an independent Santa Claus candidate in Islington North armed with a "wealth tax" talking point while some meanie "neoliberal" for Labour has to point out what a daft idea this all is. I've no idea why you wouldn't just boost pension credit or boost whatever Incapacity Benefit is called now for older people who can't work.

* There were 3 different decisions made that affected this. The last one by Osborne was very sudden, and there's a case for some modest general compensation there. But the other two were well-trailed by Major and Brown. That's normal government policy, winners and losers, and we don't normally say that requires compensation.

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-mot ... -the-1950s

There are a depressing number of Labour MPs signing that. The Campaign Group are predictably all over it.

Get rid of fees and you know what happens, governments balance books, less students go, some Universities go bust even though their widening participation structures are actually quite good.

All the while your university system is being filled up at the high class Universities with international students.

Squeeze at both ends means it no longer becomes open to all. Yes the system needs reforming and it needs reforming so the poorest can go debt free and that acts on a sliding scale. Easiest way would potentially be a graduate tax but it has its own pitfalls.

mattomac wrote: ↑Wed Jan 18, 2023 12:21 am Get rid of fees and you know what happens, governments balance books, less students go, some Universities go bust even though their widening participation structures are actually quite good.

All the while your university system is being filled up at the high class Universities with international students.

Squeeze at both ends means it no longer becomes open to all. Yes the system needs reforming and it needs reforming so the poorest can go debt free and that acts on a sliding scale. Easiest way would potentially be a graduate tax but it has its own pitfalls.

Yep. Maintenance grants got squeezed by the SNP to keep up their free fees. This is much worse for poor students than having fees that they only pay back if they earn a lot.

Jez and the inevitable:

Birds of a feather.

He’s back doing what he loves and knows.

He's right about this, on principle.

Then again, I thought he was the realpolitik man nowadays. Sorry, Jez, realpolitik says the US is our ally, you know how it is.

I don’t think he is right about Assange, on principle or otherwise.