Inequality in Britain

[Ladymuck]

Gawd - to my utter amusement (or should that be bemusement;-)) - I think you might be right.

[Odyssey]

I think the Liberal Democrats should walk away from the coalition.

[expat]

but then they would not get elected again...and have no power for years

[Ladymuck]

It would serve them right. They have sold their souls to the devil in return for power.

[DJKillaQueen]

On the vote poll thing, you have to remember that the proposed cuts and tax hikes haven't come into effect yet, and won't start doig so until next year - whereas meassures on Welfare reform start from September (so yes lets clobber the poor first). Until the economy starts to see the impact of cuts, the job losses and so on, there won't be much shift in the vote polls. Also Labour are without a leader at present.

I think some people are impressed by the 'cut the deficit message' without understanding the coming consequences for public services from that. And also the constant demonisation of the benefits culture is not a message lost on the right. When the cuts start to bite though, and Labour have a new leader, I'd espect a shift.

One thing that is going to lose the Tories and Lib Dems votes are the propsed changes by the FSA to the mortgage lending industry. Self certified mortgages are to be outlawed along with changes to interest only (favoured by buy-to-let investors) mortages. Welcome changes that will start to address the over inflation in the housing market but no doubt will be a vote loser for the Tories.

I think the Lib Dems are finished tbh and will leave the coalition (forced by the backbenchers) if they don't get political voting reform.

[Ladymuck]

The LDs have breached the trust of those who voted for them - big time.

[DJKillaQueen]

Well the big carrot that allowed Nick Clegg to get his way with his backbenchers is the voting reform thing. OK so he's now got the referendum. Both main parties are going to campaign vigorously against it. And there are aspects to what will be in the referendum that many people are not going to be happy voting for.

Probably what will happen is that Labour and Tory voters will vote no at the reforendum and The Lib Dems will lose the vote (the electorate just isn't that bothered about political reform - which will only serve the Lib Dems after all). Then Clegg will have a problem. Backbenchers will say 'what is the point now in toing the tory line?'.

[MitchK]

What do you think about this Graduate Tax that is being floated, equality fans? Only a Lib Dem could come up with that. Let's punish you for trying to educate yourself and improve your qualifications. It's a tax on intelligence, unlike the lottery which is a tax on stupidity.

It will (if ever implemented) just increase the brain drain from this country.

[Ladymuck]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>...equality fans?

Ooooh you are funny. LOL.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think anything that is a disincentive to education Mitch is a bad idea. The brain drain point you make is an important one because there is no doubt we produce some of the world's best engineers, designers, doctors and so on but we struggle to keep many of them.

And it's no coincidence that in Labour's drive to keep young people off the unemployed register, higher education places quadrupled, to a point that the bill for tuition fees to the tax payer became too high...hence the introduction of tuition fees. The knock on from that is that older graduates like myself have now found that we now need MA's and even higher education for many professions, where a degree was sufficient before. Suddenly the first class degree isn't good enough whereas 15 years ago it was!

We all know that there are many degree courses that are not worthy (like the degree in Airline Management that one university is running!) and that many graduates have no hope of earning enough to repay the loans within a reasonable period of time (let alone going on to become homeowners or fulfill any other apsirations they have). I still don't understand what was so wrong with the former Uni/ Polytechnic system and the intermediate BTEC and HND two year courses (many courses currently running as four year degree courses could be easily done in two years with less debt to the student). They seemed to serve the countries employment needs far better than the cuurrent one size fits all system, which has changed nothing for the better. The ten top Universities are still the top ten Universities and some employers won't accept a degree from anywhere else....so competition is as fierce as ever.

It's not just as you say, taxing those who go and get that education (many of whom will be from ordinary backgrounds) it's the gross lack of investment we put into talented people once they are qualified, through investment in industry and the sectors where they should be able to flourish and untimately regenerate those industries with their talents.

The Lib Dems got a lot of student votes because they campaigned for reform of tuition and student fees. Needless to say that Clegg gets booed everytime he goes near a university now. Places will be cut in line with cuts in University funding....so expect to see youth unemployment rise over the next five years too.

[Ladymuck]

Apologies for my flippant outburst above MitchK...but your seemingly mocking/sarcastic tone did genuinely cause me to laugh out loud.

Anyway, with regard to your question on this proposed Graduate Tax.

I agree with DJKQ's comment that anything which deters education is to be avoided.

However, as Gordon Brown (I think it was him) once said, we are facing exceptionally difficult times. This means, like it or not, savings have to be made somewhere if this country is not to completely bankrupt itself. I would prefer to see neither tuition fees nor a graduate tax (now that would be good!). However, out of the two I would - if pushed - opt for the latter purely because I believe it to be fairer. The current system of tuition fees is inherently unfair, not least because - again (and apologies for using the same phrase) - it is a regressive measure in that it likely to affect those on the lowest incomes the most. As I understand the situation (and I am happy to be corrected on this) the proposed tax will mean that the amount paid by the individual will depend on the amount s/he eventually earns once employed.

[Ladymuck]

BTW, I don't think it's right to say that this proposed tax is a tax on intelligence. Education and intelligence are two different things. Some of the brightest people I know left school at 16 without going on to further education. Conversely, there are those who have received the most privileged of education...

[DJKillaQueen]

I think it's the right way to go although don't students at present only have to pay back once they start earning?.

How long do you pay the tax for? It worries me that if it's for life, then the real term costs when added up for the degree will make it far cheaper, if you have parents who can afford it, to go abroad to do a degree. Just as indeed many foreign students come here too (we can't tax them afterwards). The details need to be worked out. They need to base any tax on real work earnings and not projections.

I'm all for anything that increases access to and the affordability of education though and of course, I was able to get my degree without having to pay a penny, when education really was free for those whose didn't have parents to pay for it.

The Lib Dems as a campaign policy said they would phase out tuition fees within six years. They also said they would oppose any moves to raise tuition fees (widely expected as part of the spending review) and have given their MPs permission to abstain on the issue. How kind of Clegg to allow them to abstain but not oppose.

[Brendan]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What do you think about this Graduate Tax that is

> being floated, equality fans? Only a Lib Dem could

> come up with that. Let's punish you for trying to

> educate yourself and improve your qualifications.

> It's a tax on intelligence, unlike the lottery

> which is a tax on stupidity.

>

> It will (if ever implemented) just increase the

> brain drain from this country.

Mitch. If I get this correctly it is proposed as an alternative to graduates paying their tuition fees by means of student loans.

In which case it will be better for them as it is money that they pay now anyway, they won?t be paying interest on debt and it will be going back into education. (theoretically)

The fact that it is proportional to earnings is controversial but there is no reason why people who choose to work in healthcare or education who already end up earning half or less than those who choose activities like law or finance should pay the exact same, making the difference proportionally more. They certainly aren?t less intelligent or dedicated. In fact experience tells that the opposite in normally true.

This may actually end up affecting me as I?m busy doing a second degree (in law) at the moment.

[Ladymuck]

Sure, the devil is always in the detail...

The Financial Times also raises some interesting questions such as how will those that drop out of university be made to pay?

[Brendan]

That's not how taxation works. May as well ask how the unemployed should pay for the NHS.

[Loz]

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The LDs have breached the trust of those who voted

> for them - big time.

I disagree LM. It's probably the party's own fault, but people projected onto the LibDems what they wanted to, without really understanding where the party stood. Like all political parties, the people involved often made statements designed to attract voters which also muddied the waters.

People think LibDem is just a nice cuddly, non-threatening form of Labour. In reality it actually straddles centre ground (i.e. borrows a bit from both) on economy and, as the name implies, takes a liberal view on the authoritarian/liberal axis. It's clear that the current LibDem leadership is dominated by Orange Book authors, and that is where the Libdems of the coalition sit. To borrow someone else's words, "Liberal economics trusts the individual citizens. Socialists see them as dupes of advertisers and victims of rapacious bosses, but Liberals take a more confident view."

I believe that, politically, LibDems are equidistant from both Labour and the Tories, which is why they could have partnered with either. But, as Mandy's book confirms, Labour had really no interest in this, so the Tories were then the only game in town.

So, if people who voted LibDem feel their trust has been breached, it because they didn't really understand what they were voting for. Which is not terribly dissimilar to when New Labout was voted back in last time.

[Loz]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What do you think about this Graduate Tax that is

> being floated, equality fans? Only a Lib Dem could

> come up with that. Let's punish you for trying to

> educate yourself and improve your qualifications.

> It's a tax on intelligence, unlike the lottery

> which is a tax on stupidity.

>

> It will (if ever implemented) just increase the

> brain drain from this country.

Providing they stay true to where they nicked the idea from - Australia - it's a pretty good system. No university fees up front, but you get taxed extra until you have paid them off.

Surely the current system of student loans/fees is a bigger disincentive?

[Brendan]

As someone who has supported them for the last 8 years (not that I?d describe myself as a ?libdem? but because I see then as the best option in a bad bunch) I don?t feel let down.

They aren?t the labour party light and they aren?t socialist. They do however have a social conscience and an ethos of equal opportunity which is where they differ from the conservatives.

We were heading for a tory government anyway and I?m glad that the libdems had the stomach to get into bed with the conservatives and at least force a few good things into the policies they were going to role out anyway.

[Ladymuck]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's not how taxation works. May as well ask how

> the unemployed should pay for the NHS.

Fair (albeit mildly facetious) comment Brendan. Doesn't alter the fact that the FT's question is an interesting one though.

[DJKillaQueen]

The Financial Times also raises some interesting questions such as how will those that drop out of university be made to pay?

Quite. There's lots to be worked out if it's going to work and of course not all Law and Medical graduates earn big salaries. Also how would we tax those that emigrate, if at all?

That's not how taxation works. May as well ask how the unemployed should pay for the NHS.

Yes a tax is a tax, there's no getting away from that. But we've been here before, paying tax on things only to see it not invested in the thing being taxed. So I would want to see some ringfencing on that tax so that any profit is guaranteed to go back into education and indeed profit leading to a reduction in the tax rate.

Socialists see them as dupes of advertisers and victims of rapacious bosses

You are not suggesting the Lib Dems sit between a conservative and a socialist party are you? There are no socialist parties anymore, just the odd socialist policy amongst predominently free market economics. If anything that's why the Lib Dems struggle in reality. Thee's no clear ground for them to occupy and no space between the two main parties.

So, if people who voted LibDem feel their trust has been breached, it because they didn't really understand what they were voting for. Which is not terribly dissimilar to when New Labout was voted back in last time.

That's rather insulting to the electorate and a complete assumption on your part. Voters read election material, they watch televised debates, read newspapers and many other plentiful sources of information about the policies of the party they might consider voting for. If anything, in this election, because so many voters were changing postion on their vote they paid MORE attention to what the campaigners were saying. They fully understood what they were voting for - and decided no one party was good enough to to govern.

[DJKillaQueen]

Surely the current system of student loans/fees is a bigger disincentive?

Yes I personally think it is so some sort of reform for a better system is needed.

We were heading for a tory government anyway and I?m glad that the libdems had the stomach to get into bed with the conservatives and at least force a few good things into the policies they were going to role out anyway.

I agree they can rein in the Conservatives on some things but I think their power will become increasingly limited. If the Conservatives had been forced to rule as a minority government (which I think they would have rather than force another election), there would still have been a process of consensus but without Lib Dems having to toe a coalition line. But of course there would have been no role in cabinet for Lib Dem MPs. I think it's still too early to say if the coalition will survive. The real test will come later in the year when the coalition tries to get bills through parliament. And we also wait to see what the spending review has in store too.

[Odyssey]

Loz, they have betrayed their voters when it comes to the health service. No-one voted for the wholesale privatisation of part of the NHS.

[Ladymuck]

Oh no! Just seen the news...they want to take the bus pass too! It's the only thing I've got to look forward to in my (poor) old age.

BAAAAAAHHHHHHH

[????]

THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT......