Your very own manifesto!

[dandelion]

And I think we should pay students grants which are adequate to live on, as under Thatcher and Major.

funnily enough students then were moaning because these two had been cutting the grant (or failing to increase it with inflation, and there was lots of inflation). There was a lot of fuss about withdrawing social security rights from students- this was when the minimum age for claiming was introduced- so that they could not claim them to top up their grants, which had eroded so much they otherwise qualified.

 

[798686]

1.Stabilisation of the Economy. A return to prudence and sustainable fiscal policies. Timetable to bring UK government spending back under the 3% of GDP deficit ceiling in a controlled way over 3 years. Moderate cuts across most government departments (salami slicing), and a drive to remove unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and endless quangos.
Would recommend a change in income tax banding. A 2-stage plan to restore tax revenues, and also to remove onerous taxation for the poorest in society. 55% tax rate for highest earners, and return to 22% for middle earners (over £15,500) – offsetting immediate reduction to 18% for earnings under £15,500. Followed in 3 years time by a further reduction in the lowest rate to 15% (giving time for coffers to be replenished in the meantime).
Slight raise of VAT to 18% (reviewable after 3 years).

2. Reappraisal of Housing Policy, tied in with immigration policy. General aim to keep UK population below 70m. Lower and more controlled immigration (also possible temporary restriction on numbers from EU countries, would need discussion with EU). Building of 500,000 – 1m new council homes over 5 years. Current numbers stand at 4m (with a waiting list of a further 4.5m people). Encouragement of brownfield redevelopment and low cost housing, and also carefully targeted use of greenbelt in key areas with least possible impact. Managed devaluation of housing market planned over 2 terms.

3. Review of UK Relationship with the EU. An open debate on future terms of UK membership including full appraisal of pros and cons, with referendum planned 18 months into first term. Would need to be thoroughly researched, and every effort made to handle things in as uncontroversial way as possible, to reassure international community and the markets. Two options:
a. Possibility of Norway/Switzerland style EU partnership. Cooperation with EU, but not a full member – keeping increasing number of key decisions in the UK. Remain in single market, whilst accepting moderate reduction in voting rights over policies.
b. Remain member of EU, fully participating, but with the general aim being to favour an EU of nations, rather than a single state. Possible return to EPP as practical move for more interaction and influence. Also, commitment to Britain keeping the pound, and also the budget rebate as long as it is justified. Move to reform CAP.

4. Commitment to retain Britain’s Nuclear Deterrent. Also, timetabled withdrawal from Afghanistan, and procurement of American equivalents to snatch land rovers (cheaper, and not done originally due to EU-centric procurement policy).

5. Encouragement of Enterprise and Industry. Boosting of efforts to retain key companies under British control, and also a move to lessen reliance solely on UK Financial Industry. Cap on banking bonuses, and more oversight/regulation of potentially irresponsible financial practices. Continued encouragement of investment in the UK (but not to the extent of foreign takeovers of key companies).

6. Conciliatory stance towards Argentina. Commitment to defence of Falklands as long as they desire to remain British – but discussion of possible joint exploration of waters for oil/gas reserves, and refining, etc. Could lead to improved relationships with South America, and possibility of supplying oil to the region (dependant on success of Falklands exploration). Could also open opportunities for other development opportunities in S. America.

7. Commitment to Relationship with USA, on friendly but practical terms. Tacit support, but acknowledgement that it has to be, and will be, in line with Britain’s interests and values. Encourage joint pursuit of environmental programmes, and moderation in foreign policy.


8. General commitment to search for most successful, fair and efficient policies for UK, regardless of traditional ideas of left and right-wing. Use of cross-party expertise where practical. Promotion of UK as modern, co-operative, and competent member of international community.


*Also commitment to continuing with plans for the High-Speed Rail Link.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

The thing with point 8 is, it goes against the Adversail (?) nature of parliament. It is the job of the opposition to work against government plans to show up the possible arguments against said policy. Its evdident in the layout of Parliament with the two sides facing eachother as opposed to the semi circle layout of the european Parliament, where the nature is to reach a compromise.

 

[798686]

True. I agree on the need to avoid a single-party, consensus style of government. Will have to work on that one a bit more I think.

Was saying I wouldn't let traditional thinking get in the way of a good policy. Plus, using the best people for the job, in areas where it doesn't necessarily affect party politics, could be quite useful (maybe environment, drugs, certain foreign policy areas, science, business, etc...). Just key advisors, or inviting noted experts to contribute to plans.

And...just because it's against the way things are usually done, doesn't mean it can't be tried.

 

[Jason]

funnily enough students then were moaning because these two had been cutting the grant (or failing to increase it with inflation, and there was lots of inflation). There was a lot of fuss about withdrawing social security rights from students- this was when the minimum age for claiming was introduced- so that they could not claim them to top up their grants, which had eroded so much they otherwise qualified.

This is of course true. But compared with the situation now the 1980s and 1990s were great for students:

* No fees for all UG courses. No fees for many PG courses.
* Grants that were enough to live on (back in the early 1970s they had been at the level of the salary of a young professional)
* Social security benefits during the summer for students who did not work (some restrictions were introduced)
* No need whatsoever for students to leave with a debt. Indeed the banks wouldn't lend students more than a few hundreds so it just didn't happen. Compare the tens of thousands of pounds of debt of graduates today.

 

[Catchoftheday]

The average person in the UK reads "The Sun" (or if they can't really read it, they stare at page three). The average person in the UK cannot work out a percentage, cannot place an apostrophe correctly, cannot manage their own personal finances, has minimal or no understanding of debates in science, takes no interest in the arts, plays no active role in religion - depressing, isn't it! Our tabloids are full up with celebrity gossip and the sagas of football heroes. .

Who is this average UK person and how come you know so much about them

Is it you

 

[dandelion]

This is of course true. But compared with the situation now the 1980s and 1990s were great for students

i never said otherwise. However you claimed that the current labour government was responsible for destroying the student lifestyle, whereas the decison to remove student grants and instead introduce fees basically dates from the thatcher conservative era. They started the policy and I don't see them proposing to change it back now?

* Grants that were enough to live on (back in the early 1970s they had been at the level of the salary of a young professional)

would that be under labour 64-70, conservative 70-74 or labour 74-79?

1.Stabilisation of the Economy. A return to prudence and sustainable fiscal policies. Timetable to bring UK government spending back under the 3% of GDP deficit ceiling in a controlled way over 3 years.

so i make that about 90 billion in either tax increase or cuts within 3 years, about 15%?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Something caught my eye on this thread

If you are going to tax 100% of income above £100,000 (or even 90% or 80%) then no one is going to take this money as income. They might take it as perquisite earnings (free car, house, plane, lunch). They might take it in stocks and shares. They might earn it abroad. They might employ their spouse, child, granny. They might defer the earning. They might go and live abroad. If all else fails they will pay their accountants to find loopholes. Or they might just put their feet up and stop working.

You honestly think people would turn down an opportunity to make more money every year if it was offered to them just because of a potential high tax rate for people who made more than £100000?

I know that if I doubled my yearly income right now, I'd be paying more in taxes. But my daily, weekly & monthly expenses would be taken care of effectively and I would have less headaches because of it. That's worth the higher tax rate if you ask me. It only takes place once a year, and with the extra money coming in you could still budget it properly so it doesn't affect you.

 

[798686]

So, I make that about 90 billion in either tax increase or cuts within 3 years, about 15%?

Sure! Only £30billion sliced off the budget each year, innit? :tongue:

Maybe it's a bit ambitious, but it's what Greece is expected to do (with smaller figures, but similar percentages). Could take 1-2 terms in reality, I guess. But not tackling it sees our debt increasing all the time, so...don't see a choice really.

But what of the rest of my manifesto? Some Dandelion destructive criticism will help prepare me for unruly opposition backbenchers.

 

[Jason]

Who is this average UK person and how come you know so much about them

Is it you

"The Sun" sells around 3 million copies every day and is read by around 7 million. This is one of the world's biggest newspapers by circulation and has a massive percentage readership within the UK. The newspaper targets the average UK demographic as determined by NS-SEC and ACORN, with the quirk that it is read by slightly more men than women (which may have something to do with p3).

The "average" person in the UK is a Sun reader. And if you want to know what the "average" person in the UK thinks, then read "The Sun". "The Sun" has the potential to influence swing voters. As they said in 1993 on the day after the election "it woz The Sun wot wun it".

 

[Jason]

ithe decison to remove student grants and instead introduce fees basically dates from the thatcher conservative era. They started the policy and I don't see them proposing to change it back now?

This just isn't right. The policy was invented by Labour and implemented by Labour, and not even in their first term.

Changing it back is perhaps a second term Conservative goal. It is right to implement such a policy.

 

[Catchoftheday]

"The Sun" sells around 3 million copies every day and is read by around 7 million.
At the last census in 2001 there were nearly 60 Million peqple in the UK

The "average" person in the UK is a Sun reader. ".

I'm still none the wiser on how you know this average person, it IS you isn't it.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

This just isn't right. The policy was invented by Labour and implemented by Labour, and not even in their first term.

Changing it back is perhaps a second term Conservative goal. It is right to implement such a policy.

You're beyond wrong. The tories arnt for getting rid of fees, they want to raise them, and if you think im wrong, go to hustings and question Conservatives on it. I did, and i got "i would only vote to raise it bu another £5,000" and when a Lib Dem said "well, people in your party would vote for higher" they simply bowed down and said nothing.


Please dont question that because i saw it. Im not sure if the internet link to a recording still exists but i can look if you would like.

 

[dandelion]

Originally Posted by dandelion
ithe decison to remove student grants and instead introduce fees basically dates from the thatcher conservative era. They started the policy and I don't see them proposing to change it back now?

This just isn't right. The policy was invented by Labour and implemented by Labour, and not even in their first term.

as i posted in another thread,
Imperial College. IC Reporter, A HISTORY OF STUDENT FUNDING

Says it is is an article from the imperial college staff newspaper written in 1995. 2 years before Blair and labour came to power in 1997, it says:

''the financial pressures on students have grown; student grants have long since stopped trying to keep pace with the cost of living and have been replaced with a mixed grant and loan system. The fall in student grants is a direct consequence of the very large increase in student numbers coupled with the Government’s desire to contain expenditure. Even ministers might now realise that a Ford Fiesta might be a better metaphor [rather than a Rolls-Royce]. One MP, Don Foster, has just completed a survey of student stress and suicide and has concluded that the increasing level of poverty amongst students lies behind the increased stress levels reported by university counselling services. ''

The conservative policy of expanding university education was itself a very effective way of cutting headline unemployment rather than having any other goal. The stroke of genius was to get those people to pay for their own unemployment.

 

[798686]

so i make that about 90 billion in either tax increase or cuts within 3 years, about 15%?

You might be right about the longer time-scale needed to get back in the black. New OECD report suggests the British economy may be set to recover quicker than many other European countries, but...it'll take about a decade to sort out the balance sheet.

 

[Jason]

Tuition fees for UK undergraduates were introduced by Labour in 1998. This is 100% a Labour policy. It replaced free University and College education. It is a retrograde policy which has damaged the prospects of a generation.

Maintenance costs were traditionally funded by a student grant which was adequate to cover costs. There was an element of means testing on parents' income, so the sons and daughters of well off parents did not receive the whole maintenance grant. In the mid 1990s an interest free loan scheme was additionally introduced, largely as a way of coping with situations where affluent parents declined to contribute. It was also open to students who wanted a bit more than the maintenance grant offered. What students could then borrow was limited; the system did not have students leaving with anything like the level of debt they now have. Loans for fees is 100% a Labour policy; loans for maintenance costs is a Labour perversion of something rather different which existed in the mid 1990s.

Labour have been in power for 13 years. They have had plenty of time to put in place the HE funding model they want. They have chosen to decrease opportunity and hurt the poorest in society by introducing academic fees. They have also reduced the government's funding to universities - it is something like 40% per student of its 1997 level. These policies are barbaric. We now have substantial jobs cuts at UK universities and a real prospect of the quality of UK university education falling sharply.

The Conservatives' policies are set out on their website:
The Conservative Party | Policy | Where we stand | Universities and Skills
They are not promising to go back to the good old days of 1997 or the bonanza years of the beneficient Thatcher - it just isn't realistic with Labour's economic mess. But they do set out a change of direction. A lot of the meat is in the small print of the pdfs.

Vote Labour for bankrupt universities closing their doors.

Vote Conservative for places at universities for around 10,000 additional students - and this for September this year.

 

[dandelion]

Tuition fees for UK undergraduates were introduced by Labour in 1998. This is 100% a Labour policy. It replaced free University and College education. It is a retrograde policy which has damaged the prospects of a generation.

im not spending the evening looking for a precise webpage to make my point, but for example, at Times Higher Education - Suffering students hit again

there is an article from 1996 about proposals to introduce fees to compensate for government central grant cuts to universities. then at

Times Higher Education - Tories back voucher scheme

there is a discussion of conservative proposals to eliminate dtudent grants and increase loans, which also mentions that university per capita funding had fallen 27% over the previous 5 years.

Basically, the conservative government had given universities powers to charge fees, and was steadily cutting their grants until they did so. Thats how you introduce a policy without admitting to it. As I said somewhere to Lemon, the tactic now is to wait until universities squeak that they just don't have enough money, and then allow them to charge more.

Maintenance costs were traditionally funded by a student grant which was adequate to cover costs. There was an element of means testing on parents' income, so the sons and daughters of well off parents did not receive the whole maintenance grant. In the mid 1990s an interest free loan scheme was additionally introduced, largely as a way of coping with situations where affluent parents declined to contribute.

No, largely because the grant was getting smaller every year.

Labour have been in power for 13 years. They have had plenty of time to put in place the HE funding model they want.

I never said Labour was wiling to go back to free HE. I simply observed that the policy of getting students to pay was a conservative invention. If your trying to persuade me to vote conservative, you will never do it by claiming the conservatives are better than labour at whatever, when their track record says the opposite. All this does is convince me they are liars and not fit to govern.

They have also reduced the government's funding to universities - it is something like 40% per student of its 1997 level. These policies are barbaric.

the article above says funding fell 27% in the five years 91-95. It doesnt say the total for the whole of that period of conservative government, and it fell continuously, but that means it fell to 75% in just 5 years. Youre saying labour has cut 60% of what remained since 1997. Now 60% of 75% is 45%. So labour has cut 45% of the amount being paid per student in 1991 in the last 13 years, while the conservatives managed to cut 25% of that amount in 5 years. I make it that the per year rate of cut was therefore greater under the conservatives. Actually, without the fancy maths, the 60% cut in 13 years is about the same rate as 25% in 5 years. So you believe that what the conservatives did to HE last time they were in office was barbaric?

 

[Jason]

Dandelion - Labour have been in power for 13 years. They are responsible for everything, probably even the bad winter we have had. If they didn't like any policy in any area whatsoever that they inherited from Thatcher and Major they have had 13 years to make changes. They could at least change direction in 13 years. What they have done with HE is to take a system which was basically free and make it into a system that is basically paid for by students. This is Labour's decision and Labour's responsibility. Speculating about what the Conservatives might have done is irrelevant (and it wouldnt have been this) - Labour have done the deed. Labour have created a system which hurts many of the poorest members of our society and exacerbates the divide between those who can pay and those who can't. Labour have kicked students in the face and shown their utter contempt for people from poorer backgrounds who try to benefit from a good education. Labour policy towards students has been mean, petty, blinkered, penny-pinching, narrow-minded, spiteful and plain wrong. And I repeat I just don't care about speculating on what the Conservatives might have done - Labour in their 13 long years in power have made their decisions and have their track record. They have punished poor students along with all the other poor in our society. Margaret Thatcher had sound social morals; Blair and Brown don't. At the end of Thatcher's stint as PM the gap between rich and poor had narrowed and the country was wealthier. At the end of Brown's stint the gap has widened and the whole country is poorer.

 

[eurotop40]

Margaret Thatcher had sound social morals; Blair and Brown don't. At the end of Thatcher's stint as PM the gap between rich and poor had narrowed and the country was wealthier.

Pardon my intrusion. I remember some of the events happening when Ms. Thatcher got to power (I was in the UK then). Can you provide evidence about your statement? Wasn't at the Thatcher time that housing prices skyrocketed because of rising interest rates and many people lost their home?

 

[dandelion]

Dandelion - Labour have been in power for 13 years. They are responsible for everything, probably even the bad winter we have had.

If they have that much authority then we'd better keep them in government. Goodness knows what they would do in opposition.

If they didn't like any policy in any area whatsoever that they inherited from Thatcher and Major they have had 13 years to make changes. They could at least change direction in 13 years.

Labour have continued the conservatives policy on higher education, which is to say send more people to university but not spend any more money doing it. I looked at the link you gave earlier to the conservative policy on universities. It says they want to create more places. It does not say they intend to provide more money. The logic is that individual student debt will continue to rise as fees do, under the conservatives.


I refer you once agin to the link I gave above, which describes conservative policy in1996:

''On funding, the policy group agrees that the erosion in real terms in the per capita unit of funding of students (down 27 per cent in the past five years) must be halted and that extra resources are needed for further expansion and for maintaining and enhancing quality. We doubt that the taxpayer will want to fund this increase and conclude that this must be found from within the existing higher education budget. ''

ie more places but no more money from the taxpayer. Policy hasnt changed.

Labour have kicked students in the face and shown their utter contempt for people from poorer backgrounds who try to benefit from a good education.

What labour have done is to carry through a system which educates more students (good?), but does not cost the taxpayer any more (many, particularly conservatives, consider this good?). More people have the opportunity to go to university, but they have to pay part of the cost themselves. Personally, i dont agree with expanding the system to such an extent, but I dont regard it as kicking students in the face. They have a choice, and in the sense that more people get that choice, the system is undeniably more fair. The fact that labour has basically adopted the conservatives policy on this rather than a traditional socialist one just demonstrates there is damn all to choose between them.

All in all this is a very 'conservative' solution where the consumer pays. Labour has pretty much abandoned the socialist model where the best students get a free education because it is to all our benefit. This system is 'fairer', but in the process it has pretty much thrown away the benefit which a university once gave to poor students, giving them a leg up into the ruling elite. Going to university no longer does this.

The big lie is that a university education will automatically increase your earning power, or having a bigger percentage of university educated people will increase the wealth of the country. Basically these things are false, or show diminishing returns in quantity. A degree was of most benefit to an individual when few people had one, but gives very much less benefit when most do. It remains the case that employers preferentially seek out people from those institutions regarded as the best. The 'extra' people paying to go to university will get least benefit from it. Once again I would remind you that one of the original conservative aims from sending more people into education was to keep them busy instead of being unemployed and rioting.