Should Corbyn join RailUKforums?

[yorksrob]

It shows how far to the right politics in this country has become when Corbyn is regarded as "extreme left" when he is in fact no more than a Scandinavian-type social democrat.

Indeed. This is what I find myself thinking. It was quite amusing watching the press try and make out a relatively modest cabinet reshuffle, particularly for a new leader, to be some sort of 'night of the long knives'

 

[Oswyntail]

...
And those people decrying his views have no comment to make on the fact that for the past 6 years we have the most right wing government in memory (even more so than Thatcher's) that is waging war on the poorest and weakest in society

No comment perhaps because it isn't a "fact".:roll:

 

[muddythefish]

No comment perhaps because it isn't a "fact".:roll:

From where I'm standing it is

 

[miami]

No comment perhaps because it isn't a "fact".:roll:

The Summer budget did the following left-wing actions

• Continuing the Lib Dem policy of increasing the tax-free personal allowance for Income Tax, massively helping low-earners
• Reduced the amount individuals earning over £150,000 could pay into their pension tax-free
• Increasing the money paid to poorer students, on the understanding they pay it back if and when they become rich

And one I personally hate but I understand to be a lefty position

• increase in free childcare from 15 hours/week to 30 hours/week for working families with 3 and 4 year olds

On the social side, "I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative." isn't a traditional right-wing policy, and no doubt earned him some enemies on the bigot side of the party. Heck he Even apologised for Section 28.

 

[Johnuk123]

From where I'm standing it is

I think the present Tory party are probably the most left of centre Conservatives for many a year.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It shows how far to the right politics in this country has become when Corbyn is regarded as "extreme left" when he is in fact no more than a Scandinavian-type social democrat.

I am sure, that if asked by any of the other Norse deity, Thor would have also claimed to be such a personage as you describe above...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

From where I'm standing it is

Is that situation "The Slough of Despond"...:roll:

 

[northwichcat]

The Summer budget did the following left-wing actions

• Continuing the Lib Dem policy of increasing the tax-free personal allowance for Income Tax, massively helping low-earners
• Reduced the amount individuals earning over £150,000 could pay into their pension tax-free
• Increasing the money paid to poorer students, on the understanding they pay it back if and when they become rich

I don't think those are 'left wing' actions but more 'left of centre' policies. The Conservatives must have realised the changing of the tax free personal allowance was a big vote winner for the Lib Dems in 2010 and they needed to match the Lib Dems' target to win marginal seats from them. It also genuinely does make things better for hard working people, whether some the Conservative policies which are supposed to do that actually do that is a different question.

Some of the other Conservative policies which aren't in response to what another party proposed aren't exactly 'right wing' but 'right of centre' which is why political parties with more right wing policies particularly on immigration exist.

 

[Oswyntail]

I think the present Tory party are probably the most left of centre Conservatives for many a year.

Exactly. In my lifetime, both Conservative and Labour governments have always been centrist, with minute differences in nuance either way (though I do find the Conservatives have a higher competence level). That is fine by me. Long periods in government have come about not because the winning party has gone skidding off to its more extreme reaches, but, rather, because the losing one has. "We lost because we were not ????? enough" is never true. Remember that, compared with most of the rest of the world, our governments of the last 60 years have all been left wing.
May I also suggest a version of "Godwin's Law" for use when considering such topics: "The word "Thatcher" is introduced into discussion merely to frighten the children and provoke gnashing of teeth, and adds nothing to the discussion".

 

[tony_mac]

I don't think those are 'left wing' actions but more 'left of centre' policies.

Removing all grants for students from low income families can hardly be classed as a 'left wing' or even 'left of centre'.

 

[Clip]

I don't think those are 'left wing' actions but more 'left of centre' policies. .

Surely anything that is left of centre and very far from being right of centre is left wing is it not? Once you pass centre you are either left or right.

Maybe you and the other poster meant 'far left'?

 

[northwichcat]

(though I do find the Conservatives have a higher competence level).

With any Political Party I don't think the party should just be assessed on how well they implement their manifesto promises but also how they react if they try to do something they implement goes wrong.

Take two Labour policy examples:

1. Abolishing the 10p tax rate. Really Labour should have realised earlier that it would make people on low incomes pay more tax. However, once Labour had accepted it was a problem Mr Darling raised the personal allowance and backdated the change to the start of the tax year meaning by the end of the tax year no-one on a low income was worse off as a result of the change. So I think eventually Labour got it right and corrected their original mistake, not something we see a lot of in politics.

2. ID cards. Even in the lead up to the 2010 General Election Gordon Brown was still refusing to accept their plan for making ID cards compulsory for people who have passports was the only way forward. To me that never made sense, optional national ID cards especially for people who don't drive and don't want a passport has some logic to it but issuing them with only with a passport didn't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Removing all grants for students from low income families can hardly be classed as a 'left wing' or even 'left of centre'.

My understanding was the other poster was referring to changes made this year that increased financial support for students opposed to the removal of grants which was done years ago

Surely anything that is left of centre and very far from being right of centre is left wing is it not? Once you pass centre you are either left or right.

Maybe you and the other poster meant 'far left'?

From an academic spectrum there are 5 different positions to the left of the political spectrum and only 1 of those is left wing and the closest political party we have in the UK to that position is the Green Party. The TUSC would be too far left to be classed as left wing while (currently) the Labour party would be too close to the centre to be classed as left wing.

 

[tony_mac]

My understanding was the other poster was referring to changes made this year that increased financial support for students opposed to the removal of grants which was done years ago

No, students from low-income families could still get a (partial) maintenance grant.
Instead of a £3400 maintenance grant in 2015, in 2016 they can get an extra £4000 in loans instead.
Some people are claiming that is beneficial to the student, but I'm sure they don't actually believe it.

 

[muddythefish]

Exactly. In my lifetime, both Conservative and Labour governments have always been centrist, with minute differences in nuance either way (though I do find the Conservatives have a higher competence level). T.

I agree that Tories are very competent at making the poor suffer for the excesses of the rich, in fact they excel at it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am sure, that if asked by any of the other Norse deity, Thor would have also claimed to be such a personage as you describe above..:

The last time I saw "personage" was in a Dickens novel.

 

[miami]

No, students from low-income families could still get a (partial) maintenance grant.
Instead of a £3400 maintenance grant in 2015, in 2016 they can get an extra £4000 in loans instead.
Some people are claiming that is beneficial to the student, but I'm sure they don't actually believe it.

I certainly do believe it. Just like I believe that the current tuition fees are better than those in 2000 when it was £1000 a year UP FRONT.

Those loans are repaid once the benefactor is earning lots of money. If they remain a poor family they don't have to repay. If you become a stockbroker, you have to pay it back.

Before you had the ridiculous situation where someone could graduate and go on to earn a six figure salary without paying a penny in tuition (that tuition instead being subsidised by builders and plumbers), while others could pay thousands and never earn even the average wage.

Just like I advocate a 100% inheritance tax, I also advocate equal treatment regardless of your parent's income. That equal opportunity to me is left wing. YMMV.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Exactly. In my lifetime, both Conservative and Labour governments have always been centrist, with minute differences in nuance either way (though I do find the Conservatives have a higher competence level).

That's because they need a good portion of the country to vote for them (1 in 3).

However you're presumably defining "centrist" on a relative scale, and that scale moves. Currently in Europe it's moving as a whole to the right, and regardless of economic factors, with that also tends to come with decreases in personal liberties, which are rarely clawed back (many on both the left and right are authoritarian).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The last time I saw "personage" was in a Dickens novel.

You must not have read many of my postings that have been made since 2011 on this website, as I use that word on a regular basis on this particular website....

May I be so bold as to invite you to actually see the definition of the word "personage" in a reputable dictionary, as in my posting, Norse gods were made reference to and the word "personage" is quite apt in that circumstance. It is still an acceptable word to be used in 2016.

 

[muddythefish]

The "centre ground" is the centre ground as perceived by the City of London corporations and corporate-controlled right wing media media. Far from being centrist, the centre ground has shifted so far to the right that Corbyn "hard left" views are in fact firmly in the middle ground.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The "centre ground" is the centre ground as perceived by the City of London corporations and corporate-controlled right wing media media. Far from being centrist, the centre ground has shifted so far to the right that Corbyn "hard left" views are in fact firmly in the middle ground.

Noting what you say above, how would you then describe how the same phrase of "centre ground" would be when viewed by MOMENTUM?

 

[fowler9]

How much do you have to be earning to have to start paying back your University fees these days?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How much do you have to be earning to have to start paying back your University fees these days?

Someone at University recently told me that it was when earnings per annum exceeded £21.000.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Someone at University recently told me that it was when earnings per annum exceeded £21.000.

On the money there Paul, no pun intended! That's why my wife and I have paid for our children's accommodation costs at Uni along with modest living expenses but not tuition fee's.

All three of the little blighters are studying for degrees which in theory should help them to get well paid jobs once they finish their studies so paying tuition fee's will hardly see them out on the street.

 

[miami]

On the money there Paul, no pun intended! That's why my wife and I have paid for our children's accommodation costs at Uni along with modest living expenses but not tuition fee's.

All three of the little blighters are studying for degrees which in theory should help them to get well paid jobs once they finish their studies so paying tuition fee's will hardly see them out on the street.

Certainly won't. As Paul says, it's only on the income over £21k, and it's 9% over that. Effectively it's an increased income tax level.

Looking at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12983928

The mid-point salary of graduates aged 22 to 64 was £29,900, compared with £17,800 for non-degree holders, the Office for National Statistics found.

This means the average graduate would pay back 9% on £8,900, or £801 a year, dropping their effective salary to £29,099. The non-graduate earns £17,800.

If a graduate doesn't earn well (they stay in education perhaps), and earn a non-graduate salary of £17,800, they pay NOTHING BACK on their loans.

Given that tuitiion must be paid for, the options are
1) General taxation
- paid for by low earning graduates, non-graduates and graduates
OR
2) An effective graduate tax
- paid for by higher earning graduates, but low earning graduates, non-graduates are exempt

option 2 is the progressive option here.

However my recommendation to parents with kids aproaching university age is to take the opportunity to study abroad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/ex...h-costly-UK-for-free-education-in-Europe.html

With rising tuition fees at UK universities and increasing costs of living, it is no wonder that some British students are looking further afield for postgraduate education.
Those that do so are spoiled for choice with a plethora of options available within the European Union. As EU citizens, British students are entitled to subsidised or fully free education at many universities across the continent. And fortunately, there are numerous courses taught entirely in English.

Broaden the horizons before settling into 40 years of rush hour trains into London, and increase your take home pay slightly.

 

[northwichcat]

How much do you have to be earning to have to start paying back your University fees these days?

Someone at University recently told me that it was when earnings per annum exceeded £21.000.

The £21,000 figure only applies to those who started University in 2012 or later. For anyone who started university between 1998 and 2011 in England the figure is £17,300. There's also no automatic write off (other than if you reach retirement age or die before it's paid off) for students who started university prior to 2004.

As most university courses are a minimum of 3 years the majority of people paying back student loans now started university prior to 2012.

 

[miami]

The £21,000 figure only applies to those who started University in 2012 or later. For anyone who started university between 1998 and 2011 in England the figure is £17,300. There's also no automatic write off (other than if you reach retirement age or die before it's paid off) for students who started university prior to 2004.

As most university courses are a minimum of 3 years the majority of people paying back student loans now started university prior to 2012.

So the tuition fee move that killed the lib dems in 2012 made things far better for lower paid people's cash flow, and savings in general taxation allowed the personal allowance to increase to £10k and beyond.

Tuition fees were introduced by labour, tripled under labour, and then tripled under a Tory/lib dem coalition. That makes sense, why would the average labour voter want to pay for education of ex-Etonians in the bullington club?

Corbyn wants to remove fees by increasing national insurance. Basically get the working stiffs who don't go to university to pay, while having those who earn money from investments in buy-to-let or tax avoidance schemes not pay. A very right wing policy.

 

[Domh245]

Corbyn wants to remove fees by increasing national insurance. Basically get the working stiffs who don't go to university to pay, while having those who earn money from investments in buy-to-let or tax avoidance schemes not pay. A very right wing policy.

But that is a popular view. People often look at headline figures and how it affects them, and not much else.

"I have to pay £9000 a year? Rip off"
or
"I don't have to pay anything? Great"

 

[northwichcat]

So the tuition fee move that killed the lib dems in 2012 made things far better for lower paid people's cash flow, and savings in general taxation allowed the personal allowance to increase to £10k and beyond.

Its down to the government of the day to decide how much the threshold before repaying pre-2012 loans should be. The Conservatives could increase it to £21,000 in April if they wanted but I doubt they'll want to do that as they'll want to make it look like people who started University after they got in to power are better off than those who started University under a Labour government.

Tuition fees were introduced by labour, tripled under labour, and then tripled under a Tory/lib dem coalition. That makes sense, why would the average labour voter want to pay for education of ex-Etonians in the bullington club?

I recall a female Labour minister of the Blair administration (can't remember who though) defending tuition fees by saying it's unfair that the binmen should fund the doctors.

Corbyn wants to remove fees by increasing national insurance. Basically get the working stiffs who don't go to university to pay, while having those who earn money from investments in buy-to-let or tax avoidance schemes not pay. A very right wing policy.

The Trade Unions' view seems to be that someone from a poor background should get all the support they need to go to University so shouldn't be put off by the financing system and Corbyn seems to support that.

 

[fowler9]

I went to Uni studying Mechanical Engineering between 1994 and 98. I am currently earning 18/19000 per year. Where does that leave me and my 4 student loans? Looking at the office I work in and the economy in general most of last years graduates will never have to pay back anything.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The £21,000 figure only applies to those who started University in 2012 or later. For anyone who started university between 1998 and 2011 in England the figure is £17,300.

If you go back on the thread, you will find that my posting was made in response to a question raised of what was the level in these days, so in answer, I gave the monetary figure in current usage.

 

[azz7008]

I went to Uni studying Mechanical Engineering between 1994 and 98. I am currently earning 18/19000 per year. Where does that leave me and my 4 student loans? Looking at the office I work in and the economy in general most of last years graduates will never have to pay back anything.

Of course it depends on the industry. I will be realistically hoping to be on a upper end 5 figure salary after 15 years in the workplace, I don't see how 9000 a year is value for money. The emphasis here is on the value part. Even though the students might not need to ever pay it back, that is still money that is being passed over that in my opinion just simply isn't warranted, when some uni's have become cattle grounds for the most students they can find.

 

[miami]

Of course it depends on the industry. I will be realistically hoping to be on a upper end 5 figure salary after 15 years in the workplace, I don't see how 9000 a year is value for money. The emphasis here is on the value part. Even though the students might not need to ever pay it back, that is still money that is being passed over that in my opinion just simply isn't warranted, when some uni's have become cattle grounds for the most students they can find.

Undergrad Funding
And it's an argument for a graduate tax, where you pay 9% of your income above £21k for the rest of eternity rather than stopping after earning 300k over 21k/year (so say 510k in 10 years, or averaging 31k a year over 20 years)

However that would mean those that can would study abroad, thus never becoming liable for the graduate tax, and those that are liable would have more incentive to move abroad and move themselves out of the UK tax system. If you expect to earn an average 60K for 40 years, a 9% tax over 21k would mean paying £140k in graduate tax, you can get ivy league tuition for half that I believe.

Another way to fund universities would be to increase the higher threshold from 40% to 49%, on the assumption that most people earning in the 40% threshold benefited from tertiary education at some point, but that money just goes into the general pot, and is liable to be used to fund other areas.

The system in olden times was that tuition was paid for by the general population, just like it is for secondary and primary education.

The current system claws some of that cost back, from those that can most afford it. There's a moral statement that the population as a whole should pay for university education for all, in the same way that we pay for school education, or that we pay for libraries. It's an interesting argument, but what point do you stop? Why not pay for gym membership for all, increasing the countries health levels?

University population
There is a seperate issue regarding the number of people going to university, which is at an all time high, and by no means neccersarily a "good thing". Not neccersarilly a "bad thing" either though. If there's 50 million people aged 16 through 66, that's 1 million people per year. In the past, 70% would leave education at 16, 20% at 18, and 10% at 21. This would mean that the total in the labour pool would be 45 million (over 21), plus 0.6 million (over 18) plus 3.5 million (over 16), a total of 49.1 million.

By getting 100% to school at 18 and 50% to 21, the labour pool reduces, to 45 million (over 21), plus 1.5 million (over 18), a total of 46.5 million, but have the same demand for jobs (the same people exist)

You've reduced unemployment by 2.6 million. Trebbles all round.

The future
The age of leaving education has increased throughout some posters lifetimes. Those born in the 1930s would have left school at 15, or even 14. Nowadays you're in education until you're 18, and I don't see any sign of it decreasing.

(In the olden days more families were single-earning, so the labour pool in the 21+ bracket was far lower than it is nowadays)

There's the other issue, you used to be able to leave school at 14, go down the pit or in the factory, work for 50 years, then retire. Those jobs just don't exist now, either through offshoring or automation.

However lets assume that we go back to 10% of people going to university and 90% of people not. If you accept the premise that most jobs require a degree (and I don't accept that - mine certainly doesn't, but in practice they do), what are the 90% of people that don't go to university going to do?

In theory a highly skilled workforce of 50 million can produce the same (or more) economic output of a highly skilled workforce of 25 million and unemployed of 25 million, but have individuals only work for 20 hours a week rather than 40. What to do with the population in the face of increased automation and globalisation is probably the biggest challenge of the 21st century, and not one anyone seems to want to tackle.

As time goes on, if university extends to having 70% of the population going, or 90%, or even becomes compulsory, there's a strong argument for it to be free at the point of use and paid for by general taxation, just like health and primary/secondary education is, but I don't think that that should happen. I'd far rather fund free university places for 40 or 50 year olds, or even new retirees, rather than just turn it into year 14, 15 and 16 of school.

 

[northwichcat]

If you go back on the thread, you will find that my posting was made in response to a question raised of what was the level in these days, so in answer, I gave the monetary figure in current usage.

But like I said most people paying back student loans are those who graduated before the change was made, meaning most present day repayments being made relate to the old threshold. We don't live in a world where graduates earn so much their student loan is paid off within 12 months of graduation!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't see how 9000 a year is value for money.

That level is being criticised by university lecturers as students expect more if they pay more - a logical scenario.