Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[SpurMeUp]

The point is relating to the original article, Starmer saying he wouldn't be able to go to university now when in reality he could do but wanted to grab some headlines (which he has).

Benefits are essential for people to live, without them they wouldn't have a home, food, water etc. I don't think a degree provides the same minimum comfort levels. So we should fund degrees for anyone who wants it regardless of the subject is what you seem to be hinting at? How much does a degree cost - what 50K ish on average? What happens if you drop out or fail? I think some support should be provided for education whether that's a degree or something else but it needs to be made clear that a degree isn't the be all and end all unless you want to go into a specific field like medicine. I've met countless people in my career without a degree who have all managed just fine.

Bit cynical? Politician talking publicly and attracting attention, what a disgrace! I think the reality for a lot of bright young things is that University is not automatic now. Many want to get hands on. Pursuing apprenticeships or getting a job. Which is not surprising when they'll exit uni owing 30k or more. They could earn 100k instead over 3 years. That may have been the difference for teenage Stammer and he'd be working in an office now, never having attained a law degree.

Btw a degree costs the government/tax payer around 10k for most subjects, for things like performing arts where a high proportion don't pay back the loan, more like 30k. But that is a 'gross cost'. If you factor in an individual’s higher earnings (which correlates with a degree - 120kish more earnt over their life) and their lifetime income tax, you start to see a net benefit to the economy. Especially if you then factor in innovation that occurs within Unis, and post-Uni. New products, techniques, technologies etc. Maybe the UK could restrict the number of French Poetry degrees or Performing Arts courses. Maybe we do already? But I think you'll agree it is important to give people choice, and no doubt there are countless British actors who have gone on to have amazing careers after their performing arts course. But you'd happily give them up and only let wealthy people go to acting school?

No one suggests university makes people, or those who didn't go are any less. I know many seem to have a chip on their shoulder about this. And I don't really know why. It doesn't define any of us, or shouldn't. I knew a CEO who was 70 odd and he still had a chip on his shoulder about not attending Uni. Highly successful, but somehow thought he was lessor than those with a degree which of course he was not.

You wouldn’t question funding school education. Most appreciate that educating people pays for itself. So why would you want to make post-school education the preserve of the elite? That must be avoided at all cost. Anyone must be able to further themselves and pursue education after school if they so desire. At least that is my philosophy. Clearly a belief you don’t share.

 

[Lilbaz]

How is this guy not running for president?

 

[glasgowspur]

Bit cynical? Politician talking publicly and attracting attention, what a disgrace! I think the reality for a lot of bright young things is that University is not automatic now. Many want to get hands on. Pursuing apprenticeships or getting a job. Which is not surprising when they'll exit uni owing 30k or more. They could earn 100k instead over 3 years. That may have been the difference for teenage Stammer and he'd be working in an office now, never having attained a law degree.

Btw a degree costs the government/tax payer around 10k for most subjects, for things like performing arts where a high proportion don't pay back the loan, more like 30k. But that is a 'gross cost'. If you factor in an individual’s higher earnings (which correlates with a degree - 120kish more earnt over their life) and their lifetime income tax, you start to see a net benefit to the economy. Especially if you then factor in innovation that occurs within Unis, and post-Uni. New products, techniques, technologies etc. Maybe the UK could restrict the number of French Poetry degrees or Performing Arts courses. Maybe we do already? But I think you'll agree it is important to give people choice, and no doubt there are countless British actors who have gone on to have amazing careers after their performing arts course. But you'd happily give them up and only let wealthy people go to acting school?

No one suggests university makes people, or those who didn't go are any less. I know many seem to have a chip on their shoulder about this. And I don't really know why. It doesn't define any of us, or shouldn't. I knew a CEO who was 70 odd and he still had a chip on his shoulder about not attending Uni. Highly successful, but somehow thought he was lessor than those with a degree which of course he was not.

You wouldn’t question funding school education. Most appreciate that educating people pays for itself. So why would you want to make post-school education the preserve of the elite? That must be avoided at all cost. Anyone must be able to further themselves and pursue education after school if they so desire. At least that is my philosophy. Clearly a belief you don’t share.

I don't think anyone is saying that you should not have a choice of going on to higher education, the question is why should society pay for you to do so if there is no pay back.
If as you suggest having a degree increases your earnings then why should the tax payer pay for you to enrich yourself with no benefit back?

 

[P.D.]

Bit cynical? Politician talking publicly and attracting attention, what a disgrace! I think the reality for a lot of bright young things is that University is not automatic now. Many want to get hands on. Pursuing apprenticeships or getting a job. Which is not surprising when they'll exit uni owing 30k or more. They could earn 100k instead over 3 years. That may have been the difference for teenage Stammer and he'd be working in an office now, never having attained a law degree.

Btw a degree costs the government/tax payer around 10k for most subjects, for things like performing arts where a high proportion don't pay back the loan, more like 30k. But that is a 'gross cost'. If you factor in an individual’s higher earnings (which correlates with a degree - 120kish more earnt over their life) and their lifetime income tax, you start to see a net benefit to the economy. Especially if you then factor in innovation that occurs within Unis, and post-Uni. New products, techniques, technologies etc. Maybe the UK could restrict the number of French Poetry degrees or Performing Arts courses. Maybe we do already? But I think you'll agree it is important to give people choice, and no doubt there are countless British actors who have gone on to have amazing careers after their performing arts course. But you'd happily give them up and only let wealthy people go to acting school?

No one suggests university makes people, or those who didn't go are any less. I know many seem to have a chip on their shoulder about this. And I don't really know why. It doesn't define any of us, or shouldn't. I knew a CEO who was 70 odd and he still had a chip on his shoulder about not attending Uni. Highly successful, but somehow thought he was lessor than those with a degree which of course he was not.

You wouldn’t question funding school education. Most appreciate that educating people pays for itself. So why would you want to make post-school education the preserve of the elite? That must be avoided at all cost. Anyone must be able to further themselves and pursue education after school if they so desire. At least that is my philosophy. Clearly a belief you don’t share.

But people can still go to university by taking a loan for their fees, I can imagine it's off-putting to some people but then the communication around the benefits of it should be made clearer. I don't want to make it elite but it should be fair and as it stands the loan system isn't horribly unequal (the interest and payment durations could be refreshed). For jobs afterwards there comes a point of saturation - after all there's only so many high paying jobs to go around and that's the problem lots of people graduate with expectations of going straight into a decent high paying job but that's not always the case. There's been lots of stories of people that have ended up working in coffee shops etc because the jobs they were expecting just weren't there.

As it is the fees are 9K and universities say they make a loss on each UK student so it's probably closer to 35K for an average 3 year degree. If they earn an extra 120K on average then at the current fees they're making an extra 90K over their lifetimes. If someone works for those 3 years instead at 15-20K a year then then difference is only 30-45K a year so not massive. I'd bet if the top and bottom 5% of earners with degrees are stripped out then it would be a lot closer - I imagine there's plenty of people in law, banking, insurance etc on huge salaries that skew this number.

Although there is a lot to be said for the experience of being at uni, living away from home and meeting new people etc.

 

[scaramanga]

There’s nothing more I needed to highlight after my initial post to you. You did that for me so perfectly. Take the exit route Nepo Dave, I’m being nice

...and jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams, why does the earth always look like a disc, but I'm not explaining to you, etc.

 

[scaramanga]

Well from what I am reading (today) I'm not too sure electric boilers will take much of the market share primarily for running cost reasons, but there are other cons too. One is that it seems to have a massive current draw so no other power-hungry appliances would be able to be on at the same time. The fact I've never stumbled across one is maybe not that surprising then considering. I'd bet on the heat pump being the electric boiler of choice because of the low running costs, but who knows?

Most houses in the UK are either rated to 60A or 100A.

Run an electric shower (32A) and an electric oven (32-45A) at the same time as needing the heating on and your main fuse won't be there for long.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I don't think anyone is saying that you should not have a choice of going on to higher education, the question is why should society pay for you to do so if there is no pay back.
If as you suggest having a degree increases your earnings then why should the tax payer pay for you to enrich yourself with no benefit back?

Why should society pay for secondary and further education, when half those kids could get a head start in the Amazon warehouse or a DHL van instead? All education is an end in itself and for wider societal benefit, not a means to wealth

 

[Rorschach]

Most houses in the UK are either rated to 60A or 100A.

Run an electric shower (32A) and an electric oven (32-45A) at the same time as needing the heating on and your main fuse won't be there for long.

That's it more or less unless you have a tri-phase supply. I have been totting up the power draw in my new house recently and this is fresh in my mind. Anything with an element usually has a big wattage - immersion, elec shower, kettle, etc. and the electric boiler looks like it is the same. Things like an elec cooker or a car charger are also thirsty fudges as well. I have a 16kva connection to the house but I couldn't run two elec showers at the same time say (usually - pv panels/battery can contribute extra wattage). So the showers have to be prioritised to be sure nothing trips. As everything is rightly moving to electricity I think the pv panels, batteries, car battery, will all become part of a home microgrid in most houses supplementing the grid. And also the tories suck, just to make this post a bit political.

 

[glasgowspur]

Why should society pay for secondary and further education, when half those kids could get a head start in the Amazon warehouse or a DHL van instead? All education is an end in itself and for wider societal benefit, not a means to wealth

Way to go twisting an argument.
So if everyone goes on to further education and studies history, drama, a language or generally topics that have at best a limited use to society why should the amazon w/h worker or DHL driver, who you will are low paid and every penny crucial, pay higher taxes to fund the further aspirations of others?

If you decide to study for a education that benefits society then society should fund it.
Study medicine, we fund it, however you have to work in the NHS for at five years.
Study law, we will fund it 90% of it, but you have to do legal aid for at least five years.
Etc.
The tax payer should not be funding anything that is not a tangible benefit to society.
This concept that you seem to be proposing of everyone has a higher education, world becomes more enlightened and lives in bliss is fanciful.
Imagine six o'clock on a December evening in the new enlightened world and you decide to sit down and enjoy a good mind improving book, oh wait I can't it's too dark and there's no electricity because we haven't trained any electricians!
No closer to ever happening than what you are suggesting, but one size doesn't fit all and is no solution for society.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Way to go twisting an argument.
So if everyone goes on to further education and studies history, drama, a language or generally topics that have at best a limited use to society why should the amazon w/h worker or DHL driver, who you will are low paid and every penny crucial, pay higher taxes to fund the further aspirations of others?

If you decide to study for a education that benefits society then society should fund it.
Study medicine, we fund it, however you have to work in the NHS for at five years.
Study law, we will fund it 90% of it, but you have to do legal aid for at least five years.
Etc.
The tax payer should not be funding anything that is not a tangible benefit to society.
This concept that you seem to be proposing of everyone has a higher education, world becomes more enlightened and lives in bliss is fanciful.
Imagine six o'clock on a December evening in the new enlightened world and you decide to sit down and enjoy a good mind improving book, oh wait I can't it's too dark and there's no electricity because we haven't trained any electricians!
No closer to ever happening than what you are suggesting, but one size doesn't fit all and is no solution for society.

Why is only medicine and engineering of benefit to society? That's just Thatcherism/neo-liberalism speaking. Arts are of equal value to society. Humans naturally split about 50:50 into sciences and arts based on their nature. It would be quite an uncivilised society that discards half it's teenagers and tells them their personal and professional development wont be supported because they won't be remunerated enough in future, according to the corporate overlords.

 

[glasgowspur]

Why is only medicine and engineering of benefit to society? That's just Thatcherism/neo-liberalism speaking. Arts are of equal value to society. Humans naturally split about 50:50 into sciences and arts based on their nature. It would be quite an uncivilised society that discards half it's teenagers and tells them their personal and professional development wont be supported because they won't be remunerated enough in future, according to the corporate overlords.

Firstly I did put etc.
Second I don't know anyone who would argue that a doctors contribution to society is of more worth than an actors.
Who has mentioned discarding anyone?
If anything it's you who are discarding those who are not willing or inclined to enter higher education.

 

[Grays_1890]

Why is only medicine and engineering of benefit to society? That's just Thatcherism/neo-liberalism speaking. Arts are of equal value to society. Humans naturally split about 50:50 into sciences and arts based on their nature. It would be quite an uncivilised society that discards half it's teenagers and tells them their personal and professional development wont be supported because they won't be remunerated enough in future, according to the corporate overlords.

It would also be uncivilised and self harming to disregard the portion that are academically talented but come from an extremely poor background. Everyone should have the opportunity to learn and earn regardless of background

 

[SpurMeUp]

I don't think anyone is saying that you should not have a choice of going on to higher education, the question is why should society pay for you to do so if there is no pay back.
If as you suggest having a degree increases your earnings then why should the tax payer pay for you to enrich yourself with no benefit back?

Where and when did anyone say there is no payback!!?

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

 

[SpurMeUp]

But people can still go to university by taking a loan for their fees, I can imagine it's off-putting to some people but then the communication around the benefits of it should be made clearer. I don't want to make it elite but it should be fair and as it stands the loan system isn't horribly unequal (the interest and payment durations could be refreshed). For jobs afterwards there comes a point of saturation - after all there's only so many high paying jobs to go around and that's the problem lots of people graduate with expectations of going straight into a decent high paying job but that's not always the case. There's been lots of stories of people that have ended up working in coffee shops etc because the jobs they were expecting just weren't there.

As it is the fees are 9K and universities say they make a loss on each UK student so it's probably closer to 35K for an average 3 year degree. If they earn an extra 120K on average then at the current fees they're making an extra 90K over their lifetimes. If someone works for those 3 years instead at 15-20K a year then then difference is only 30-45K a year so not massive. I'd bet if the top and bottom 5% of earners with degrees are stripped out then it would be a lot closer - I imagine there's plenty of people in law, banking, insurance etc on huge salaries that skew this number.

Although there is a lot to be said for the experience of being at uni, living away from home and meeting new people etc.

So all you’re saying is the current setup is fine? And that some people won’t accelerate their earnings post degree.

I actually don’t have a problem with a university grad working in a coffee shop. You make what you want out of education - it is not a silver spoon that guarantees you anything. Nor should it right? The other important point is that if a degree is just about money, the system is failing. The value in experience, knowledge, culture, connections etc should be far greater.

 

[glasgowspur]

Where and when did anyone say there is no payback!!?

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

Gb is suggesting that further education should be free.

 

[P.D.]

So all you’re saying is the current setup is fine? And that some people won’t accelerate their earnings post degree.

I actually don’t have a problem with a university grad working in a coffee shop. You make what you want out of education - it is not a silver spoon that guarantees you anything. Nor should it right? The other important point is that if a degree is just about money, the system is failing. The value in experience, knowledge, culture, connections etc should be far greater.

It's not perfect, I'd like to see some funding given for critical service jobs like medicine e.g. work for NHS for say 15 years and from years 5-15 take 10% off their fees. Even starting at 25 they'd be fully qualified and debt free by 40.

Record people seem to apply every year so the current process must be working OK, I've not looked at it in detail so for ages so am only going by general news I read.

 

[Gutter Boy]

It would also be uncivilised and self harming to disregard the portion that are academically talented but come from an extremely poor background. Everyone should have the opportunity to learn and earn regardless of background

Absolutely. Every university should have a 94% state school quota (representative of the general population)

 

[Gutter Boy]

It's not perfect, I'd like to see some funding given for critical service jobs like medicine e.g. work for NHS for say 15 years and from years 5-15 take 10% off their fees. Even starting at 25 they'd be fully qualified and debt free by 40.

Record people seem to apply every year so the current process must be working OK, I've not looked at it in detail so for ages so am only going by general news I read.

Why start selecting and itemising courses like that though? Why not just a graduate tax, where future graduates just pay an extra fraction of a percent on income tax?

 

[glasgowspur]

So all you’re saying is the current setup is fine? And that some people won’t accelerate their earnings post degree.

I actually don’t have a problem with a university grad working in a coffee shop. You make what you want out of education - it is not a silver spoon that guarantees you anything. Nor should it right? The other important point is that if a degree is just about money, the system is failing. The value in experience, knowledge, culture, connections etc should be far greater.

I'm intrigued by some of what you say.
Rereading what I've written below (as I always do
) this is a genuine question, I'm not having a go or trying to make a snidey point.

I never went to further education, it would have been a total waste of my time. A classroom environment is not somewhere I would flourish.
Between leaving school at and starting in my current employment at 25 (30 years ago) I worked in everything from a fishmonger to the inland revenue, from building sites to pr work for a charity ( no not a chugger) , for one of the biggest companies in the world to a back street engineering company.
Almost all have led to some kind of management position.
I drank in some of if not the roughest pubs in Glasgow, but I've also stayed in suites in some of the top hotels in the world.
From eating absolute crap from McDonald's I've dined in a private dining room at the connaught hotel in Mayfair with food and wine especially flown in from France and cooked by one of the world's top chef's. A private party of six, nothing business related.
I have friends who are drug addicts, I also have friends who have been honoured by the UN.
I am lucky to have friends that are everything from gardeners to very eminent professors involved in cutting edge medical treatments.
Why do you think not having a higher is a bar to experience the wonders of the world?
Speaking only for myself I don't think I would have had anywhere as rich a life as I've had if I had chosen to take my education further.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I'm intrigued by some of what you say.
Rereading what I've written below (as I always do
) this is a genuine question, I'm not having a go or trying to make a snidey point.

I never went to further education, it would have been a total waste of my time. A classroom environment is not somewhere I would flourish.
Between leaving school at and starting in my current employment at 25 (30 years ago) I worked in everything from a fishmonger to the inland revenue, from building sites to pr work for a charity ( no not a chugger) , for one of the biggest companies in the world to a back street engineering company.
Almost all have led to some kind of management position.
I drank in some of if not the roughest pubs in Glasgow, but I've also stayed in suites in some of the top hotels in the world.
From eating absolute crap from McDonald's I've dined in a private dining room at the connaught hotel in Mayfair with food and wine especially flown in from France and cooked by one of the world's top chef's. A private party of six, nothing business related.
I have friends who are drug addicts, I also have friends who have been honoured by the UN.
I am lucky to have friends that are everything from gardeners to very eminent professors involved in cutting edge medical treatments.
Why do you think not having a higher is a bar to experience the wonders of the world?
Speaking only for myself I don't think I would have had anywhere as rich a life as I've had if I had chosen to take my education further.

Where did I say I thought not having higher education is an impediment to life’s experiences?? It is just another experience. Just like taking away one of your many experiences wouldn’t define you.

The simple point was not to deny people education based on wealth. It should be available for people who want to pursue education, and it shouldn’t be contingent on having family with money. That is all.

Thanks for noting you weren’t a Chugger like your style.