A Political Thread

[ncurd]

If they believed Hussein had WMD, why manufacture the evidence?

They didn't (well for the most part we'll never no the full truth) most was trumped up in importance. Lets not forget countries that were against the war also believed he had them. People like to think no one believed there were weapons in retrospective history but reality is most actually did.

- - - Updated - - -

Further reading into the complex nature of the legality of the Iraw War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

 

[ncurd]

Timely article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33849764

 

[Tony Manx]

Let's not forget that Blair is the man that lied about his true religion in order to be elected only to revert to that which he had practiced throughout his premiership as soon as it ended!

He would not have to lie now, this PC world has seen to that, but this was the 1990's

If you are deceitful to and about yourself on this level, then there is nothing you will not lie about!!

 

[j'nuh]

I actually think what's just happened to the Lib Dems is a pretty good example of what's going on.

Because I think Nick Clegg did stand by his principles. I think his principles were to pursue a left-centrist liberal policy and do everything he could to make the country better and people's lives freer and fairer - and that meant seeking political victory and power, even if it involved a risk. I think that was true of many of his MPs.

And the issue was that it transpired that many potential Lib Dem voters did not share these principles. Which is fair enough, although I think it's a bit of a disgrace that people seek to say that having different principles meant that Clegg et al had no principles - which may not be what you're saying, but I've heard enough say it.

The problem is more that Clegg's politics were at odds with the Lib Dem grassroots, and most of those who voted Lib Dems in 2011.

Lib Dems had built a following of those who are naturally opposed to the political right: students, anti-war voters (following Iraq), civil liberties campaigners, disaffected Labour voters who were fed up with New Labour. So much so that I'm fairly convinced that the Lib Dem voter base was to the left of the Labour voter base in 2011. It was a terrible mistake to have gone into coalition with the Tories; an uneasy Lib-Lab coalition would have been more palatable for the voters than a Con-Lib one.

As a 2011 Lib Dem voter, my perception of the Lib Dems role in a Con-Lib coalition is for the Lib Dems to dilute Toryism. A Lab-Lib coalition may have had a harder time passing bills due to the lower MP count, but the Lib Dems could have been truly productive to meet the ends of liberalism. Liberalism isn't so at odds with the Labour party as it is with the Conservative party.

I am glad that Farron is re-positioning the Lib Dems back to being a social liberal party, but I worry that the damage has been done.

 

[Tony Manx]

I happen to think that the LibDem move into a coalition was brave and the right thing to do at the time. I also think that Danny Alexander was an excellent guy to have in the Treasury and he sacrificed his political career because he felt the Country's need was bigger than personal triumph.

I also believe that Clegg was put in a situation where he had to agree to the Conservative Uni policy or break the Coalition at a time which it would have done immeasurable harm to the ailing economy and took the brave course to go with them at the cost of his political career. He knew that that would be the result of his actions and has duly paid the penalty. He did have a mini revenge by thwarting the boundary changes that will keep Labour out of Government forever!!

Esy to look at things in hindsight with warped eyes though I suppose!

 

[j'nuh]

I happen to think that the LibDem move into a coalition was brave and the right thing to do at the time. I also think that Danny Alexander was an excellent guy to have in the Treasury and he sacrificed his political career because he felt the Country's need was bigger than personal triumph.

I also believe that Clegg was put in a situation where he had to agree to the Conservative Uni policy or break the Coalition at a time which it would have done immeasurable harm to the ailing economy and took the brave course to go with them at the cost of his political career. He knew that that would be the result of his actions and has duly paid the penalty. He did have a mini revenge by thwarting the boundary changes that will keep Labour out of Government forever!!

Esy to look at things in hindsight with warped eyes though I suppose!

The problem at the time was that there was a funding gap in the higher education sector, some suggesting that our universities would fall behind the pack if universities didn't bring in more income. Lib Dems shouldn't have agreed to covering this shortfall via a tuition fee increase though. Denying a tuition fee increase was simply a part of the Lib Dem manifesto; their voters wouldn't have penalised them for this. The Lib Dems could have worked with Labour on a graduate tax and proposed that as an alternative "fairer deal". Worst case scenario is that the Tories reject it and universities are underfunded until 2015, when Lib Dems and Labour can propose the graduate tax again. On the other hand, the Tories would have taken damage for not dealing with higher education whilst in government.

 

[ncurd]

Okay I just have to point that student loans essentially boil down to a graduate tax.

I pay back a certain % of my wages every month (it ges wrotten off at a cretain age or if i ever pay it back). Call it fees/loans whatever essentially it's a tax because of that anone who tells you other wise has no concept of how the money is paid back.

So yeah graduate tax/extra tution fees it's still 5he same thing.

Just for the record I'm absolutely against any form of payment for someone taking a higher education route for their first qualification up to and including a doctorate level. I accept it was simply something the LibDems were never going to get past the Tories but fundamentally I think it's wrong to ask young people to pay for it the rest of their lives which is what happens.

Jnuh just to say look up the Math behind passing bills under a LibLab coalition government it simply would not of worked to get anything passed as it was reliant on many other parties supporting the government. Sadly the two options were either what we got or most likely a second election at a time of pretty bad economic unease.

 

[j'nuh]

To a degree, yes, but it's about presentation. A graduate tax is perceived as being a progressive form of taxation. Tuition fees are perceived to be a debt that hangs over people. It's much easier to sell the former to people. Lib Dems tried to explain why the tuition fee increases weren't so bad, but they lost people in the detail.

As for higher education fees, I think it's fair that, where people benefit financially from going to university, they are asked to pay a bit extra for that leg-up that they get from university. So I'm all for some form of payment from students. A graduate tax seems the fairest. I'm not fond of that tuition fees can accrue interest above inflation, leaving poorer people to accrue more than the richest who can pay it off sooner. I'm not fond that it isn't clear how much people will eventually repay. I'm not fond that there isn't a clear picture of how much money it actually brings in. A graduate tax solves most of the issues with tuition fees.

 

[McTallshort]

Okay I just have to point that student loans essentially boil down to a graduate tax.

I pay back a certain % of my wages every month (it ges wrotten off at a cretain age or if i ever pay it back). Call it fees/loans whatever essentially it's a tax because of that anone who tells you other wise has no concept of how the money is paid back.

So yeah graduate tax/extra tution fees it's still 5he same thing.

Just for the record I'm absolutely against any form of payment for someone taking a higher education route for their first qualification up to and including a doctorate level. I accept it was simply something the LibDems were never going to get past the Tories but fundamentally I think it's wrong to ask young people to pay for it the rest of their lives which is what happens.

Jnuh just to say look up the Math behind passing bills under a LibLab coalition government it simply would not of worked to get anything passed as it was reliant on many other parties supporting the government. Sadly the two options were either what we got or most likely a second election at a time of pretty bad economic unease.

So who should pay for it then?

 

[ncurd]

So who should pay for it then?

The taxpayer just like they use to. As J'nuh alluded to the fact remains a graduate still on average will earn more than someone who doesn't attend university thus they will pay for it out of their normal everyday taxes just like every other stage of education. So yes people in general do financially benefit from going to university but in doing so they put more back into the system because of it.

Now there is an entire problem with too many university places and value for money but that's separate in my opinion from the issue to whether students should be paying for it as individuals.

 

[McTallshort]

The taxpayer just like they use to. As J'nuh alluded to the fact remains a graduate still on average will earn more than someone who doesn't attend university thus they will pay for it out of their normal everyday taxes just like every other stage of education. So yes people in general do financially benefit from going to university but in doing so they put more back into the system because of it.

Now there is an entire problem with too many university places and value for money but that's separate in my opinion from the issue to whether students should be paying for it as individuals.

Not entirely against the idea but there would need to be serious reform before me as a taxpayer would be happy funding the next generation of merchant bankers and stock brokers and there is no way in the world I would be happy funding a no win no fee ambulance chaser to become another bane on society.

 

[ncurd]

Not entirely against the idea but there would need to be serious reform before me as a taxpayer would be happy funding the next generation of merchant bankers and stock brokers and there is no way in the world I would be happy funding a no win no fee ambulance chaser to become another bane on society.

I've no idea what you mean by the second part but the first part is a falsehood because the fact remains you and I already are already paying to train the next generation of merchant bankers and stock brokers. They just "promise" to pay the money back but they'll already do that from the sums of money they earn in fact in terms of tax they'll put far more back into the system than you or I probably will in our lifetimes.

Now here's another part that gets my goat a little about the entire situation if you do your degree in a subject area that does not pay well (under 21K in current rules) and you never earn above that threshold after 30 years we just write off the debt meaning that johnny taxpayer did pay for your tuition. Now obviously there is some sensible reasoning behind that but take a degree that leads to a way paying job and you'll have to pay additional tax for probably most of those 30 years. Now I'm actually lucky my student loans amounted to just under half the current values so I will pay them off long before 30 years mainly due to I was in the first batch of students to have to pay them but now you have to earn ludicrous amount. Some very quick maths a three year course outside of London will incur debs of 37,500 that means to pay it back over 30 years with the 3% interest means you need to pay back £158.10 per month. Under the rules for paying it back that means you have to earn £42,080 every year (obviously this varies as it's 9% of everything you earn over 21,000). Just as a hint I don't earn close to that much in a well paying job (software engineering) 8 years after finishing university so even my debt will likely be written off under the current loans.

Another issue is in my current financial situation I could really do with the money I pay back in my student loan. My wife and myself are saving to get a deposit to buy a house and are trying to start a family with the reduced hours she'll be on things will be even tighter. In 22 years time I should be way better off in theory but that's the point the government decides I no longer have to pay the money (like I said though my loans are far less than current students so it's not completely true as I'll have paid it off before then).

Part of the reality is we are paying for fair amount of tuition fees we just try to convince ourselves the students are. The system is just massively unfair on some students and not to others as J'nuh alluded to if you earn mega bucks you can probably afford to py it off early so get more of your money earlier.

 

[Peat]

My half-baked idea would be that people continue to take out loans, but anyone working in a useful sector for at least five years post-graduation gets their debt forgiven - Teaching, Engineering, IT, Medicine and so on. Doesn't do too much for the poor lads and lasses I accept (unless they're happy following a set career path), but does nudge people towards where we need them, and offers an option.

Encouraging companies to set up more university-based apprenticeships also has merit.

I'm not sure I'm all for paying with it by taxes though; while I acknowledge graduates are a good for all society, some of us benefit more than others, and I'm not sure it's fair that all contribute equally to that (insomuch as we all pay taxes).

I may be somewhat jaundiced by the fact that the vast majority of people I know from uni probably learned nothing of academic or professional worth there; it was three years of life-lessons and rampant alcoholism that for some reason people think is useful. I don't want to price people out of a decent education, but I'm darkly suspicious about most people going to uni getting one.

 

[McTallshort]

I've no idea what you mean by the second part but the first part is a falsehood because the fact remains you and I already are already paying to train the next generation of merchant bankers and stock brokers. They just "promise" to pay the money back but they'll already do that from the sums of money they earn in fact in terms of tax they'll put far more back into the system than you or I probably will in our lifetimes.

Now here's another part that gets my goat a little about the entire situation if you do your degree in a subject area that does not pay well (under 21K in current rules) and you never earn above that threshold after 30 years we just write off the debt meaning that johnny taxpayer did pay for your tuition. Now obviously there is some sensible reasoning behind that but take a degree that leads to a way paying job and you'll have to pay additional tax for probably most of those 30 years. Now I'm actually lucky my student loans amounted to just under half the current values so I will pay them off long before 30 years mainly due to I was in the first batch of students to have to pay them but now you have to earn ludicrous amount. Some very quick maths a three year course outside of London will incur debs of 37,500 that means to pay it back over 30 years with the 3% interest means you need to pay back £158.10 per month. Under the rules for paying it back that means you have to earn £42,080 every year (obviously this varies as it's 9% of everything you earn over 21,000). Just as a hint I don't earn close to that much in a well paying job (software engineering) 8 years after finishing university so even my debt will likely be written off under the current loans.

Another issue is in my current financial situation I could really do with the money I pay back in my student loan. My wife and myself are saving to get a deposit to buy a house and are trying to start a family with the reduced hours she'll be on things will be even tighter. In 22 years time I should be way better off in theory but that's the point the government decides I no longer have to pay the money (like I said though my loans are far less than current students so it's not completely true as I'll have paid it off before then).

Part of the reality is we are paying for fair amount of tuition fees we just try to convince ourselves the students are. The system is just massively unfair on some students and not to others as J'nuh alluded to if you earn mega bucks you can probably afford to py it off early so get more of your money earlier.

You do get the second part your just trying to be clever if you want me to spell it out here goes....If the tax payer was to pick up the bill again I would be happy to fund doctors/Science/Teaching etc etc but no way would I be happy paying for someone to become a lawyer but Im guessing most of the cost of that is covered by law firms anyway.

If the degrees and chosen careers are ones the country requires fine but if someone wants to just bum around doing a art degree for 4 years because thats what his mates have done then sorry mate you need to get your cheaque book out.

 

[McTallshort]

Cannot believe you bunch of trotskyits havnt been on here banging on about comrade corbyn

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

This whole refugee crisis shouldn't really be a debate looking at the figures the UK needs to accept more IMO.

Doesn't need to be a huge a amount more, Lefties should forget allowing the number Germany and France have mainly because of the fact we don't have the volume of land per population. There is a big difference between Refugee and migrants.

BUT the government is right it isn't the answer to the problem something needs to be done to sort out the Middle East situation and not something lead by the USA it needs to be a proper UN operation (who need to pull there finger out of there arse).

Mind you a bit fed up of the German high horse ATM it's not like they had to pay a stupid amount of loan for a war they didn't start like some, they didn't show Greece any compassion earlier either.

Countries around the world need to do there load (looking at the Americas etc mainly). Japan accepted something like 4 refugees last year.

 

[McTallshort]

Don't mind taking more as long as the preaching middle-class get plenty in their back yard. Remember many years ago when asylum seekers were coming in from Somali and they all got dumped in the poorest areas in London while the Westminster jet set and human rights lawyers r us stopped them moving near to the places they lived.

 

[Mcfadden]

We use to have that here in New Zealand too. My mother works at social welfare office (people's benefits and seeking employment) and the old branch she was at in a poorer side of town was nothing but Somalians. You don't see them so much now. They either went back home or buggered off to Australia. That's why a few are skeptical here. We're one of the few countries to not just accept refugees, but involve them in a wrap-around service so they can actually be educated on how to fend for themselves, and in some cases receive financial assistance. What annoys people is they bring their parents with them and suddenly the tax payer has to folk out on Super Annunciation (retirement benefit) because apparently the Middle East can't get it's act together. Senior citizens already make up our largest beneficiary pool. Unless they're honestly in trouble, we don't want more of them.

Having said that, the ones who are in trouble in the current situation I feel extremely bad for. And I do think New Zealand should up it's intake. Our quota of refugees hasn't changed in 28 years and currently sits at 750. I think we could bring in one or two hundred from the current situation. Unfortunately, because the refugees we take come under the UNHCR programme we don't have complete control about who we take it. But the Government is looking at increasing the quota and doing our bit. I think we have to, which I support and I'm fine with.

But not by the boat load. We're on the other side of the world for one thing, and foreigners are already pushing up rent and home ownership prices making our largest cities as expensive as London and New York. So we need to balance our humanitarian responsibilities with sensibility.

 

[j'nuh]

This refugee crisis is like a group of people watching someone collapse in the street and everyone stands idly by, looking at each other as if to say, "Someone should help them..."

 

[McTallshort]

This refugee crisis is like a group of people watching someone collapse in the street and everyone stands idly by, looking at each other as if to say, "Someone should help them..."

Someone is helping them. The Germans.