British Politics Thread

@Morven: Which would've resulted in a Lab/Lib minority government. If the Conservatives had then managed to pull off a vote of no confidence with enough other parties (unlikely,) then another election would be held. Still sounds superior to me.

None of the major parties would have run with a minority Government. They'd need a majority to achive anything in Parliment, which for a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition would have needed to bring in both the SNP and Plaid Cymru and possibly the single Green MP.

1)They're nobody's second choice, the chances of extremist parties winning under AV is reduced 2) frothing hatred of anything with a liberal taint 3) that sort of underdog mentality they have needs to be maintained.

Proposals could allow UK students to enrol in university of their choice as long as they pay vastly higher fees up front.

It certainly looks likes a way for the rich to buy their way into education. I hate this idea with a passion, money rather than intelligence/grade would end up playing a greater role in education.

ptitle2rgn9vunopna

edited 9th May '11 3:17:31 PM by IanExMachina

I thought the idea was you only paid back the money if you actually got above a certain income from your degree?

IT's not about stuff being paid back.

It's about the rich buying their way into Universities if they don't make it in through intelligence.

...

Oh.

Oh you sneaky fucks.

I wouldn't normally have a problem with this. Underline, normally. If you're willing to pay for extra places after the government has already funded existing places, fine, good for you. But as mentioned in the article, the government has cut over 10,000 publicly funded places. It means that the rich can effectively buy their way into these original places, while everyone else has to work harder to get in because of the decreased supply.

Fuckers...

edited 9th May '11 3:25:31 PM by GameChainsaw

... I'd be surprised and annoyed as I was at first, but we've got a Conservative government.

What else should I expect? If I could complain to someone "official", I would, but I don't know who to and if I can, so I'll bitch about it on here.

Argghh. So less popular uni's that would offer places to less privileged would stop, and there would be even less chance for the less privileged to get into a uni.

Edit:

@Game chainsaw

I'd have a problem even if there weren't cuts, it should be done via merit. Not the right grades then no entrance. You have to work/study hard, rather than rely on family wealth.

edited 9th May '11 3:28:46 PM by IanExMachina

I will note that people have to have sufficient qualifications to be able to enroll in the course, but that means that students of rich parents who barely meet the requirements could get in while someone better (but not the best) could be turned away because of their lineage.

This is disgusting.

How are they spinning this? Surely most people are going to see it as insult to injury after the cuts?

I think the spinning intent is this:

However as I've already quoted:

So in effect with the cutting it will be a means for the wealthiest to buy places.

Buying the cut places, no less.

I reposted this on Facebook, and had two responses along the following lines, which I shall post here (rephrased) for the basis of generating discussion. The first was "the rich couldn't buy places in universities before?" And the second was that "it helps university funding for everyone, and they have to be qualified for their place anyway" *

Well technically they can, because they pay for schools like Eton and Westminster which are fast track systems into Oxbridge. However at least in this case the person is having to study/work.

I don't like it personally as the fees are around £30k a term for Eton, meaning it is only for the rich, not to mention the social ties and 'who you know' that come with it.

It most likely won't helping university funding in general as quoted so many publicly funded places are being cut, also it is the university that will take the increased fees. Not to mention less popular ones will have subsidised places withdrawn.

Whilst I would love to believe that the universities will stick to the entry requirements, I'm cynically sure that some combination of wealth and 'who you know' will provide some relaxing in 'special circumstances' in some cases.

Re: New Labour and hilarious social fascism. As bad as ID cards and the "in the name of terrorism" things were, they were generally a bit more... topsy-turvy. Whether that helps, I'm not sure. For things like drinking laws, smoking bans (we may have the bans now but remember how much time it took?), media censorship, etc. they were more frequently Heel–Face Revolving Door folk. Incompetant or inconvenient?

—-

The problem with university here is that it's been pushed as a pure market (hyperbole) for just over twenty years due to economy structure and all that. And by nature, long-term "assurances" are always a little rocky, because of stuff like cuts. It's simply not been about merit. Remember when the protests started last year and Dave made that speech in China where he essentially stated, "Come and learn in Britain! We'll be glad to accomodate your wallets, I mean, erm, you!". I see British people heading off to the continent to learn increasing in numbers this decade, again for similar reasons.

Of course, Labour again deserve a lot of blame here, more or less buying onto my line about long-term assurances. More uni courses = more money spent, but a great deal of these courses are just... well, plain useless as far as "don't worry, you'll make the money back in no time!" goes. It's not really the students' faults either, especially because a lot of them are straight-up optimistic and are simply not told that dimension of it. Why would a high school bother telling them? It's all about stats to get... more money for them anyway.

Eh, this is why I'm close to just dropping uni and doing whatever.

edited 10th May '11 7:58:49 AM by TheSollerodFascist

Clegg says that the Lib Dems have "clearly influenced" their Tory partners, on the one-year anniversary of the coalition.

Surprisingly, the House of Lords blocks police reforms.

Thoughts on either of these stories?

Nick Clegg's full of it. The Lib Dems are simply ablative armour. Really effective ablative armour. They're a lightning rod for all the criticism levelled at the coalition government.

Nick Clegg is nothing more than David Cameron's personal meatshield at this point.

Clegg was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If it had been Cable, Campbell or Huhne who entered a coalition with the Conservatives, everyone in their party would hate their guts and would be kicking themselves for not electing Nick Clegg as leader.

They can invoke the Parliament Act 1947 and force the legislation through; the Lords can't stop legislation indefinitely.

edited 11th May '11 1:57:00 PM by TheGloomer

Circa 2008, The Observer referred to Clegg and Cameron as "the smug brothers" due to their various Commons "boasts", largely regarding Brown and expenses. Clegg still has that mostly-underserved tone in the article, even though he seems to even go back on himself at the same time (claiming to have sizeable influence yet also acknowledging their small taking in the realistic sense? not really going much further with it?).

I can feel some sympathy for him in that he's perfectly aware of his status though. Every time I see him on the frontbench, he looks like he's seriously digesting a criticism someone made of him on some Internet forum the night before.

To be fair, the Lib Dems have done some good as part of the coalition, like at delaying (at least) the Trident replacement and blocking the plan to cut inheritance tax. But that's still not enough for Clegg to say they've "clearly influenced" the coalition, especially with all the unpopular Tory policies they've put their name to despite their manifesto commitments and the wishes of their voters. He's got a long way to go to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the public.

I think they received pressure right from the bat to put on a chummy show for "solidarity and reassurance for the British public" which was the Conservatives manipulating them into a position to appear like their bitch. I think there was too much of an attempt to make coalitions seem like normal governments rather than state the terms of what a coalition means and then stick by those. Also, they should be insisting on not having to go on tv and argue so positively for Tory ideas.

I saw an analysis once of what the power measures of each party would be if a hung parliament occurred. They got about 20-25%, I think, and i think the number of policy changes is not bad for that but they should have concentrated ministerial posts in return for fewer.

I was Conservative over Labour (I voted Lib Dem) until all this shit hit us. Now... I never thought I'd find myself saying this... but I'm starting to miss... no, can't say it.

Its getting to the point where I can't tolerate either party.

Maybe Scotland should go its own way. If only to escape the madhouse.

That right there is the reason the SNP walked all over the Scottish elections. Disaffected Lib Dem voters, and Labour could have tried to win them over with a "we know you hated us, but this is how we've improved and this is how the Tories are even worse than we were" sort of campaign. They didn't, SNP did, the rest is history.

Many of the old Labour regime are already gone, losing the election could have been the best thing that could have happened to them. The country, on the other hand...

And we're stuck with First Past The Post, so it's not like it's very likely that the two main parties can be pushed out of power. Hooray.

Also, Carwyn Jones has been sworn in as First Minister in the Welsh Assembly. Choosing not to form a coalition with another party, he presses on with his party holding 50% of the seats in the Senedd. Presumably, then, he will hope that his opposition party members can be swayed to his side on various little issues, or that one of them is ill whenever it comes to something important.