UK Politics: Referendum day!

[A wilding]

The idea of a "free education" when we re talking about state-funded education is an oxymoron and it is used to blindside people to the disadvantages of certain ideologies.

This whole debate is of course mired in political propaganda which tries to load negative connotations on certain phrases and use that to drive public opinion.

For those of you from the US, anyone in the UK who tries to change the generally used "free" into "paid for by the state/taxpayer" is implicitly or explicitly following that with "and why should tax payers like you and I have to subsidize them?" Such people are almost always a long way to the right in UK political terms.

[paddington]

The same is true in reverse, of course.

The notion that fees are justifiable because of an average lifetime earnings increase of graduates is at least partly a smoke and mirrors exercise too. It assumes that a, all graduates benefit from education to the same extent: b, there is no economic benefit to non-graduates of higher education: and c, that graduates would not have higher earnings without their degree. Each of these things is, to some degree, untrue.

The logical way to pay for higher education is through higher-rate income tax*, not fees. That way, graduates who genuinely benefit from their degree, pay: and those who don't, don't. Those who manage to earn a high income without going to university undoubtedly benefit from having university-educated employees, accountants, lawyers, doctors etc. and so should contribute to the system also.

Problem solved.

*That is, a rate higher than the standard rate, paid by people with high incomes, eg 40% rate taxpayers in the UK.

Wouldn't need to raise income tax, just find away to make sure that taxes get paid.

[Alex.]

Wouldn't need to raise income tax, just find away to make sure that taxes get paid.

Would make the difference in so many of the supposedly insurmountable problems that we are having to pay for with 'austerity'

[Stannisaurus2]

The same is true in reverse, of course.

The notion that fees are justifiable because of an average lifetime earnings increase of graduates is at least partly a smoke and mirrors exercise too. It assumes that a, all graduates benefit from education to the same extent: b, there is no economic benefit to non-graduates of higher education: and c, that graduates would not have higher earnings without their degree. Each of these things is, to some degree, untrue.

The logical way to pay for higher education is through higher-rate income tax*, not fees. That way, graduates who genuinely benefit from their degree, pay: and those who don't, don't. Those who manage to earn a high income without going to university undoubtedly benefit from having university-educated employees, accountants, lawyers, doctors etc. and so should contribute to the system also.

Problem solved.

*That is, a rate higher than the standard rate, paid by people with high incomes, eg 40% rate taxpayers in the UK.

In my post I was arguing about the validity of the term "free education", I wasn't arguing against (or in favor) of whether tax-paid education is the correct way to go. Regardless of the opinion anyone has on the subject, the term "free education" is misleading and I believe matters should be presented as explicitly as possible. Describing the concept as "tax-funded education" might serve a different ideology better but it is also far more accurate and precise.

As for what you say, I mostly agree with the bold and I semi-agree with the underlined part although I think its not that simple and it might present some problems.

[Stannisaurus2]

This whole debate is of course mired in political propaganda which tries to load negative connotations on certain phrases and use that to drive public opinion.

For those of you from the US, anyone in the UK who tries to change the generally used "free" into "paid for by the state/taxpayer" is implicitly or explicitly following that with "and why should tax payers like you and I have to subsidize them?" Such people are almost always a long way to the right in UK political terms.

Yeah, I have that problem when trying to point out some things in my country (not the U.S.) as well.

[Mathis]

All education should be free and funded by the state. The worst thing about tuition fees? The same people who got their education completely for free decided that they didn't want to pay for anyone else to have it and shifted the costs (and mountains of debt) onto young people. Fuck off cunts

So is that for ever and for anyone? I know education is a public good and all, but I don't see what the problem is in asking adults to take on a larger share of the costs of their own education. The terms of the loan aren't onerous and students of lower means get significant reductions as it is.

WRT Clegg and his U-turn; it doesn't reflect well on him that he broke a manifesto promise, yet as Lib-Dem voter I supported it. It showed that the leadership were serious about being a party of government and not just a repository of protest votes. If that costs them half of their support, thats fair, but also possibly a good thing if it leads to an actual Liberal party that can deliver on Liberal policies.

Though it might just make the membership shit the bed and elect a social democrat, as if we need another one of those.

[Alex.]

So is that for ever and for anyone? I know education is a public good and all, but I don't see what the problem is in asking adults to take on a larger share of the costs of their own education. The terms of the loan aren't onerous and students of lower means get significant reductions as it is.

Honestly, for me, yeah. People should be able to get free education and free healthcare for as long as they want in all circumstances IMO. I'm sure people will disagree with me but that's what I think

[The Marquis de Leech]

If that costs them half of their support, thats fair, but also possibly a good thing if it leads to an actual Liberal party that can deliver on Liberal policies.

Problem is that many people voted for the Lib Dems, thinking of them as the party of Lloyd-George. They got Gladstone instead.

(This would have been less of a problem had they indicated prior to the election that they were going for a "classical liberal" flavour. But they didn't).

[Chaircat Meow]

As much as I don't really like the Lib Dems, (Limp Dumbs) despite having a certain respect for their internationalism, I don't really want them to be wiped out at the election. That seems an unfair response on the part of the electorate, given they made the responsible choice to go into government. I'd much rather they sucked up the protest vote than have it go to UKIP, Greens and the SNP.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The responsible thing to do (assuming talks with Labour would always fall through) would have been a confidence and supply agreement. A formal coalition could only ever have meant disaster.

[Alex.]

And not lied to everyone about almost everything and then helped the Tories privatise things that even Thatcher stayed away from.

Not really an "unfair response" if the electorate kick them out at all

[Maltaran]

I imagine they'll hold onto a few safe seats (Orkney & Shetland, the northern Highlands, some of Cornwall).

[A wilding]

And not lied to everyone about almost everything and then helped the Tories privatise things that even Thatcher stayed away from.

Agreed. It was what they allowed to be done to the NHS (which may well have fatally damaged it) that I would not be likely to forgive them for.

And that can't even be put down as a consequence of a "responsible choice to go into government" - they actively promoted it.

[mormont]

As much as I don't really like the Lib Dems, (Limp Dumbs) despite having a certain respect for their internationalism, I don't really want them to be wiped out at the election. That seems an unfair response on the part of the electorate, given they made the responsible choice to go into government. I'd much rather they sucked up the protest vote than have it go to UKIP, Greens and the SNP.

We can tell you're not a fan, though sadly the limpest and dumbest thing in this post is that nickname. Really, not a great effort.

I've said this before, but the essential problem with the Lib Dems is that their leadership was liberal in a sense that their membership was not, and this led to a manifesto that the leadership personally didn't believe in, but was forced to support during the campaign. Once the campaign was over... the leadership chose to follow their personal ideology, which meant never seriously entertaining any option other than coalition with the Tories, and cheerfully negotiating away core chunks of their manifesto at a price even the Tories found shockingly cheap.

The thinking, by the Lib Dems, was that being seen as a serious party of power (rather than an ill-defined haven for protest votes) would pay off in the long run, and give them a chance of being seen as a potential party of government rather than a minor factor in the political landscape. This has not worked, unfortunately for them.

[Chaircat Meow]

We can tell you're not a fan, though sadly the limpest and dumbest thing in this post is that nickname. Really, not a great effort.

Better keep my nicknames for the SNP to myself then.

[SeanF]

The responsible thing to do (assuming talks with Labour would always fall through) would have been a confidence and supply agreement. A formal coalition could only ever have meant disaster.

The Parliamentary arithmetic meant coalition with the Tories or supply and confidence for a minority Tory government were the only options.

[williamjm]

I think also (apart from Orkney and Shetland) the protest vote that went to the Lib Dems will go over to the SNP. The Lib Dems aren't going to have a fun general election in 2015.

That did seem to what happened at the last Scottish Parliament elections, the Lib Dems were wiped out on the mainland (in terms of the Constituency seats) and only held on to Orkney and Shetland. They might do a bit better at the General Election since the SNP tend not to do quite so well at those and some of their better-known MPs might do better than the party as a whole, particularly those like Charles Kennedy who were never keen on the coalition.

[SeanF]

So is that for ever and for anyone? I know education is a public good and all, but I don't see what the problem is in asking adults to take on a larger share of the costs of their own education. The terms of the loan aren't onerous and students of lower means get significant reductions as it is.

WRT Clegg and his U-turn; it doesn't reflect well on him that he broke a manifesto promise, yet as Lib-Dem voter I supported it. It showed that the leadership were serious about being a party of government and not just a repository of protest votes. If that costs them half of their support, thats fair, but also possibly a good thing if it leads to an actual Liberal party that can deliver

on Liberal policies.

Though it might just make the membership shit the bed and elect a social democrat, as if we need another one of those.

I'm sympathetic to that argument, but it does turn out that most of the Lib Dem vote from 2010 was None of the Above. It shows why we need PR. That way we'd get:-

A Green Party, 30 or so MP's.

A Socialist Party, 30 or so.

Labour 200 or so.

Orange Book Liberals//Blairites/Cameroons 120 or so.

Traditional Conservative/UKiP 220 or so,

Nationalists, Ulster Unionists, independents, minor parties 50 or so. That way, everybody feels there's a party that represents them.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Well we had a referendum on that (ok not quite as proportional as some of us would like) because of the Libdems went into collailtion with the torries.

Unfortuantly not enough people voted for change for anything to happen. And unlike Scottish independance I doubt we will get another referendum on the matter in my lifetime.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The Parliamentary arithmetic meant coalition with the Tories or supply and confidence for a minority Tory government were the only options.

That's what I meant. Confidence and supply for a minority Tory Government, where the Tories have to get Liberal approval on everything. It would have allowed them to keep their distance, while still claiming responsibility.

Though there were other options: another election, or a Labour-Liberal with c and s from Green-Alliance-SDLP-SNP-Plaid thingy (the Jim Callaghan Option). The latter was hamstrung because Labour weren't overly interested.