General Election 2015

[kaosmark2]

Has anyone in this thread championed Danny Alexander?

[eFestivals]

I see that Blair is going to come out with a £3k cut in Uni fees, with the very wealthy paying for it via the loss of a significant tax break (that they won't miss anyway).

There's a lot wrong with the Labour party, but there's no doubts that Miliband has solutions to all sides of the issues, rather than just having a "spend more money, we don't know where that money comes from" plan.

Edited February 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[lost]

Balls would be for the chop in the event of a labour/SNP coalition:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/02/26/balls-for-chop-in-future-laboursnp-coalition-deal/

[eFestivals]

Balls would be for the chop in the event of a labour/SNP coalition:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/02/26/balls-for-chop-in-future-laboursnp-coalition-deal/

I'm thinking that no politician will have to do anything about Balls. I suspect the electorate will do it for them, as his majority is tiny and i can't see it going up.

[philipsteak]

meanwhile, some sophisticated election material from the libdems...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2970162/Take-break-like-break-Danny-Alexander-pins-election-chances-toe-curling-garish-pamphlet-including-recipe-sausage-butternut-squash-stew.html

I assumed that was Daily Mash until I saw the link

[LJS]

I assumed that was Daily Mash until I saw the link

Apparently its real & includes Danny's sausage & butternut squash recipe but for some strange reason the words "Liberal" & "Democrat" are missing from the cover.

[eFestivals]

I think chopping Balls regardless would only strengthen Labour. Such an easy target for the tories when talking about the banking crisis.

Yep.

He's only still in the mix because of the voting method the Labour party uses to appoint its shadow ministers.

Whether that's because those Labour MPs are unreformed Blairites or because they simply see him as 'a big hitter' isn't particularly clear.

[zahidf]

Yep.

He's only still in the mix because of the voting method the Labour party uses to appoint its shadow ministers.

Whether that's because those Labour MPs are unreformed Blairites or because they simply see him as 'a big hitter' isn't particularly clear.

At the time, he seemed to know what he was talking about and seemed the most economically literate of the options.

Not anymore!

his wife would be much better..

[russycarps]

At the time, he seemed to know what he was talking about and seemed the most economically literate of the options.

Not anymore!

his wife would be much better..

his wife would be a much better party leader, in terms of winning this election.

[eFestivals]

Didn't they change it so Ed could choose his own team ?

they're still pretty-much working with the team that method elected, rather than what Ed might have freely chosen.

It will be the next political cycle before that old method ceases to have influenced things.

[philipsteak]

Apparently its real & includes Danny's sausage & butternut squash recipe but for some strange reason the words "Liberal" & "Democrat" are missing from the cover.

Well in his defence, butternut squash is a tasty and versatile ingredient

[eFestivals]

Don't think that is true either.

They had a cabinet reshuffle in around 2013 that led to Ed getting rid of the likes of Dianne Abbott etc. He could of got ride of Balls then... He could do it today...

He is there due to internal factions in the Labour party just like all parties. He doesn't dare sack Balls in the same way Blair would never have got rid of Brown.

Would result in a leadership challenge etc.

Balls came top of that shadow cabinet vote.

It's easy to marginalise an already-marginalised figure such as Abbott, but less easy to marginalise someone with such clear and - this is the important bit - stated (via the election process) popularity as Balls. It would have risked Miliband's own position to do so.

When it's less clear who has support, it's easier for any leader to undermine any individual. This is why it's only post-2015 general election that the shadow cabinet elections cease to impact on the choices the leader might make for his team.

[LJS]

I see that Blair is going to come out with a £3k cut in Uni fees, with the very wealthy paying for it via the loss of a significant tax break (that they won't miss anyway).

There's a lot wrong with the Labour party, but there's no doubts that Miliband has solutions to all sides of the issues, rather than just having a "spend more money, we don't know where that money comes from" plan.

I'm a bit confused, Neil. Scotland's free tuition fees are the poor subsidising the middles classes, bu Labour's plans seem to get your stamp of approval. presumable you will

use the tax hit on the wealthy as justification. My question to you is ..."is that the best use of that money?"

Martin Lewis seems to echo your views on the Scottish situation when criticising Labour's plans...

"He said: “The biggest problem with cutting tuition fees is that it helps exactly the wrong people – only affluent graduates will gain.”

He said: “This all stems from an illiteracy about how student finance works. People worry about ‘how much I borrow’ whereas what really counts instead is ‘how much I repay’, and changing the level of tuition fees doesn’t do much to change that.”

Graduates who have received the fees have to repay 9 per cent of everything they earn above a £21,000 a year threshold.

But cutting the fees would only help well off students “who would gain from it are those who would clear their entire loan for tuition fees plus any loans for living costs”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11438220/Ed-Milibands-plans-for-3000-cut-in-tuition-fees-criticised-by-business-groups-and-experts.html

I know its the Torygraph but I just heard him making exactly the same point on the World at One.

[LJS]

I'm a bit confused, Neil. Scotland's free tuition fees (according to you) are the poor subsidising the middle classes, but Labour's plans seem to get your stamp of approval. Presumable you will

use the tax hit on the wealthy as justification. My question to you is ..."is that the best use of that money?"

Martin Lewis seems to echo your views on the Scottish situation when criticising Labour's plans...

I know its the Torygraph but I just heard him making exactly the same point on the World at One.

[eFestivals]

I'm a bit confused, Neil. Scotland's free tuition fees are the poor subsidising the middles classes, bu Labour's plans seem to get your stamp of approval. presumable you will

use the tax hit on the wealthy as justification. My question to you is ..."is that the best use of that money?"

Martin Lewis seems to echo your views on the Scottish situation when criticising Labour's plans...

I know its the Torygraph but I just heard him making exactly the same point on the World at One.

how are the most affluent gaining via it, when they'll pay much more back than the 3 x £3k they'll save on their uni fees?

What you've got there is some bullshit that the writer hopes will work to protect the privileges of the rich.

[eFestivals]

PS - it's a pile of unfactual bollocks that geezer has written.

Graduates who have received the fees have to repay 9 per cent of everything they earn above a £21,000 a year threshold.

They only pay that currently until they've paid back their fees.

Under Labour with the change paid for by the richest (via cutting pension tax breaks, something that only the richest can exploit to the full potenial), the richest will pay substantially more.

[lost]

I haven't actually looked at the figures but are they saying that with 9k fee's (the debt increases at rpi + 3% which is currently ELEVEN times the rate of inflation) that nobody is really going to clear that amount of debt and most will end up paying the 9% rate for most of their life.

Whilst with 6k fee's if you manage to quickly get into that £40k -£50k income bracket you may clear the debt in say your 30's or 40's whilst for someone in the £20k - £25k band the debt will increase more quickly than they pay it off. They will still be paying that 9% in their late 40's and early 50's potentially paying back much more.

The pensions thing is a red herring as I think most companies use salary sacrifice these days anyway.

Edited February 27, 2015 by lost

[LJS]

PS - it's a pile of unfactual bollocks that geezer has written.

They only pay that currently until they've paid back their fees.

Under Labour with the change paid for by the richest (via cutting pension tax breaks, something that only the richest can exploit to the full potenial), the richest will pay substantially more.

Ah, so economics works differently north of the (imaginary) border.

[windy_miller]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31640592

Chancellor George Osborne said: "Ed Miliband's sums don't add up because the universities would get less money and there would be fewer students so it's bad for students, bad for universities, bad for the taxpayer and bad for the British economy."

Why would cutting tuition fees result in fewer students?

Vince Cable, Liberal Democrat business secretary, rejected the plan to cut fees.

I'm sorry but the LibDems no longer get to have any say about what is right or wrong about tuition fees.

[russycarps]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31640592

Why would cutting tuition fees result in fewer students?

I'm sorry but the LibDems no longer get to have any say about what is right or wrong about tuition fees.

I think there's an argument that cutting fees would result in universities cutting courses

[windy_miller]

I think there's an argument that cutting fees would result in universities cutting courses

Yet according to Milliband, the Universities wouldn't be getting any less money. Of course whether that actually happens or not is another matter.

[eFestivals]

Ah, so economics works differently north of the (imaginary) border.

It seems to for the yes supporters, what with their magic money trees.

Yes, that money towards uni fees could be spent in a way that better benefits the poor, but at least the poor aren't being robbed to create that middle class privilege as per the Scottish version.

The rich helping towards those poorer is is a good thing. The poor helping towards the middle classes is not. What part of that does "left leaning" ( ) Scotland have a problem understanding?

Edited February 27, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I think there's an argument that cutting fees would result in universities cutting courses

that's only correct if the cut money isn't somehow made up via other means.

As far as i'm aware (from what i heard first thing this morning), the money will be made up via less tax breaks for the richest.

[russycarps]

Yet according to Milliband, the Universities wouldn't be getting any less money. Of course whether that actually happens or not is another matter.

that's only correct if the cut money isn't somehow made up via other means.

As far as i'm aware (from what i heard first thing this morning), the money will be made up via less tax breaks for the richest.

Yes I agree with you both, but I was just clarifying what Osborne's argument is.

[LJS]

It seems to for the yes supporters, what with their magic money trees.

Yes, that money towards uni fees could be spent in a way that better benefits the poor, but at least the poor aren't being robbed to create that middle class privilege as per the Scottish version.

The rich helping towards those poorer is is a good thing. The poor helping towards the middle classes is not. What part of that does "left leaning" ( ) Scotland have a problem understanding?

Of course, as I'm sure you will acknowledge, taxing the rich is not an option which has (yet) been available to Holyrood.