Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on who will be Philip Hammond’s successor

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited February 18 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on who will be Philip Hammond’s successor

It is well known that many hardline Leavers want Philip Hammond sacked as Chancellor, I can see certainly envisage a scenario where Mrs May sacks Mr Hammond to save her own skin. To paraphrase Jeremy Thorpe, greater love hath no woman than this, that she lay down her friends for her life.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,334
    edited February 18
    Thirst.

    If May sacks a chancellor on the whims of leavers, and picks the replacement on the basis of someone's Brexit credentials, then she'll just show that Brexit continues to devour this government.

    We need good government. We're not getting it.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,545
    We always need good government and for all the faults of the May cabinet, I would rather have them than Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott.

    Hammond is not who I would want in No 10 at any point. He lacks the presentational and political finesse for such a high profile role. He is (at best) a technician. But I don't trust his instincts and for that reason, I wouldn't have ever wanted him in a big job.

    Fox - too risky for me. His past misjudgements should have prevented him ever returning to office.

    Hunt - his open ambition does count against him. Anyone who has been seen to be trying so hard for promotion doesn't deserve it.

    Gove - has the brains and strategic thinking to actually make a difference to the running of the Treasury. When you give him the scope to reform, he actually thinks about it and comes up with a strong set of plans. However he is not the most comforting presence.

    But I would risk him - because he has the instincts of a reformer and the brains to work out how to deliver.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,419
    Whoever it is will have to step over the twitching corpse of Lance Bombardier Williamson to get it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,417
    Can’t see it myself, Fox is best off doing what he’s doing now - spending as much time as possible several thousand miles away from the U.K.

    Gove would be a good choice, certainly comes under the “Making Brexit a positive force for change” camp. The concern would be how to fill his place at DEFRA, which is vitally important for the next couple of years as we take back policy from the CAP.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 21,607
    Sandpit said:

    Can’t see it myself, Fox is best off doing what he’s doing now - spending as much time as possible several thousand miles away from the U.K.

    Gove would be a good choice, certainly comes under the “Making Brexit a positive force for change” camp. The concern would be how to fill his place at DEFRA, which is vitally important for the next couple of years as we take back policy from the CAP.

    Gove is competent, if abrasive. He would be an excellent choice and deserves a promotion.

    Fox has been disastrous as DfIT. The department has produced papers on Tariffs for a 21st Century Britain, while he has swanned around Washington. And he's pissed off the Koreans and the Swiss, two countries where we should be replicating existing deals. Replace him with Kwarteng now.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    Trump's approval rating is 41.4% according to the latest 538 figures. He won the election with 46% so he's retaining about 90% of his support at the moment.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,465
    edited February 18
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can’t see it myself, Fox is best off doing what he’s doing now - spending as much time as possible several thousand miles away from the U.K.

    Gove would be a good choice, certainly comes under the “Making Brexit a positive force for change” camp. The concern would be how to fill his place at DEFRA, which is vitally important for the next couple of years as we take back policy from the CAP.

    Gove is competent, if abrasive. He would be an excellent choice and deserves a promotion.
    Er, no. He is not competent. He has many good ideas but no idea of how to implement them effectively. That's the opposite of competent.

    He would be a disastrous Chancellor, another Brown.

    Edit - although another way of looking at that is that (contrary to the lies of Dominic Cummings) at Education he sold out to the civil servants. At Education they are of a very low quality, stupid, lazy, ignorant and arrogant. Their Permanent Secretary at that time, Christopher Wormald, was indeed in my experience barely literate.

    At Justice and DEFRA where the quality of his civil servants is rather higher, he has done much better. So it is possible at the Treasury, staffed by the brightest and best, he might do OK. But he certainly would be a courageous choice.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,859
    AndyJS said:

    Trump's approval rating is 41.4% according to the latest 538 figures. He won the election with 46% so he's retaining about 90% of his support at the moment.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    People noticing the tax cut in the January pay packets. I'm thankful for the extra money, make no mistake. :D
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,417
    AndyJS said:

    Trump's approval rating is 41.4% according to the latest 538 figures. He won the election with 46% so he's retaining about 90% of his support at the moment.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    Yup, and with a bunch of tax cuts and infrastructure spending coming online he's probably going to get more popular - in spite of the daily hate from most of the media.

    If the Democrats pick someone who's going to spend the 2020 election campaign talking about bathrooms while Trump is talking about jobs, they'll lose to him again. So far they look as if they want to double down on their strategy of getting massive majorities in NY and California where it doesn't matter.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,859
    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    Trump's approval rating is 41.4% according to the latest 538 figures. He won the election with 46% so he's retaining about 90% of his support at the moment.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    Yup, and with a bunch of tax cuts and infrastructure spending coming online he's probably going to get more popular - in spite of the daily hate from most of the media.

    If the Democrats pick someone who's going to spend the 2020 election campaign talking about bathrooms while Trump is talking about jobs, they'll lose to him again. So far they look as if they want to double down on their strategy of getting massive majorities in NY and California where it doesn't matter.
    I'm not sure that Trump won't be bored of the gig after four years!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960
    Hammond has two jobs: chancellor and whipping boy for the Brexit right. If he goes, both posts will have to be filled. As such, Hunt or Rudd are well suited.
  • May will do whatever is necessary to preserve her position. That is her only guiding principle.

    With events yesterday once again confirming the Labour party is unelectable, our country is in a deep, dark hole.

    It’s very hard to see a route out.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960

    May will do whatever is necessary to preserve her position. That is her only guiding principle.

    With events yesterday once again confirming the Labour party is unelectable, our country is in a deep, dark hole.

    It’s very hard to see a route out.

    Channel tunnel?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,417
    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    Trump's approval rating is 41.4% according to the latest 538 figures. He won the election with 46% so he's retaining about 90% of his support at the moment.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    Yup, and with a bunch of tax cuts and infrastructure spending coming online he's probably going to get more popular - in spite of the daily hate from most of the media.

    If the Democrats pick someone who's going to spend the 2020 election campaign talking about bathrooms while Trump is talking about jobs, they'll lose to him again. So far they look as if they want to double down on their strategy of getting massive majorities in NY and California where it doesn't matter.
    I'm not sure that Trump won't be bored of the gig after four years!
    That’s probably a bigger risk than an electoral defeat at the moment. The risk of him getting primaried is also not zero.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,768
    Putting money away for a long time IMHO. Interest rates will rise at least twice before Hammond goes.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,457
    Gove seems the intelligent choice.

    Sooner the better too - Hammond has the vision and imagination of a used crisp packet.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960
    TGOHF said:

    Gove seems the intelligent choice.

    Sooner the better too - Hammond has the vision and imagination of a used crisp packet.

    Gove cares only about Gove and Mrs Gove.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,457
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can’t see it myself, Fox is best off doing what he’s doing now - spending as much time as possible several thousand miles away from the U.K.

    Gove would be a good choice, certainly comes under the “Making Brexit a positive force for change” camp. The concern would be how to fill his place at DEFRA, which is vitally important for the next couple of years as we take back policy from the CAP.

    Gove is competent, if abrasive. He would be an excellent choice and deserves a promotion.
    Er, no. He is not competent. He has many good ideas but no idea of how to implement them effectively. That's the opposite of competent.

    He would be a disastrous Chancellor, another Brown.

    Edit - although another way of looking at that is that (contrary to the lies of Dominic Cummings) at Education he sold out to the civil servants. At Education they are of a very low quality, stupid, lazy, ignorant and arrogant. Their Permanent Secretary at that time, Christopher Wormald, was indeed in my experience barely literate.

    At Justice and DEFRA where the quality of his civil servants is rather higher, he has done much better. So it is possible at the Treasury, staffed by the brightest and best, he might do OK. But he certainly would be a courageous choice.
    Some rewriting of history I see. What Gove achieved in a short period of time at Education was unprecedented. Cut down in his prime by cowardly Cameron.

    He is repeating at his current brief - I’d imagine his budgets as CoTE would be very interesting and potentially game changing.
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 123
    May`s husband is a fund manager.Most of the business world want the Norwegian solution if Brexit is going to happen and still believe it will because anything harder will lead to mass exodus of British businesses abroad.
    They believe Theresa cannot advocate the Norwegian solution publicly because to do so would provoke hard line Brexiteers to sign a `no confidence` letter in her .
    Keeping Hammond is a means of keeping the business world onboard.If he were to be replaced for non-Brexit reasons he would NOT be replaced with a hardline Brexiteer.
    I suspect that May resents Hunt refusing to move to business in last cabinet reshuffle so rule him out.Gauke showed a tin ear when Work & Pensions Secretary over the benefits premium rate telephone issue.
    Clark, Javid and Rudd are the ones to concentrate on
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Eagles, for the sake of the nation I hope you're wrong.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,819
    I think May might be reluctant to replace Hammond.
    If she picks Hunt or Rudd she is practically endorsing them to be leader after her.

    I managed to lay JRM on betfair on this market (very limited liquidity).
    Otherwise I’m not getting involved.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,457
    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF said:

    Gove seems the intelligent choice.

    Sooner the better too - Hammond has the vision and imagination of a used crisp packet.

    Gove cares only about Gove and Mrs Gove.
    Elxcellent if utterly meaningless post,
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,457
    edited February 18
    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960
    TGOHF said:

    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF said:

    Gove seems the intelligent choice.

    Sooner the better too - Hammond has the vision and imagination of a used crisp packet.

    Gove cares only about Gove and Mrs Gove.
    Elxcellent if utterly meaningless post,
    You seem a little angry for before 8am on a Sunday morning. Cheer up old chap.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,457
    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF said:

    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF said:

    Gove seems the intelligent choice.

    Sooner the better too - Hammond has the vision and imagination of a used crisp packet.

    Gove cares only about Gove and Mrs Gove.
    Elxcellent if utterly meaningless post,
    You seem a little angry for before 8am on a Sunday morning. Cheer up old chap.
    Not really just baffled by a line of trite.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,465
    TGOHF said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can’t see it myself, Fox is best off doing what he’s doing now - spending as much time as possible several thousand miles away from the U.K.

    Gove would be a good choice, certainly comes under the “Making Brexit a positive force for change” camp. The concern would be how to fill his place at DEFRA, which is vitally important for the next couple of years as we take back policy from the CAP.

    Gove is competent, if abrasive. He would be an excellent choice and deserves a promotion.
    Er, no. He is not competent. He has many good ideas but no idea of how to implement them effectively. That's the opposite of competent.

    He would be a disastrous Chancellor, another Brown.

    Edit - although another way of looking at that is that (contrary to the lies of Dominic Cummings) at Education he sold out to the civil servants. At Education they are of a very low quality, stupid, lazy, ignorant and arrogant. Their Permanent Secretary at that time, Christopher Wormald, was indeed in my experience barely literate.

    At Justice and DEFRA where the quality of his civil servants is rather higher, he has done much better. So it is possible at the Treasury, staffed by the brightest and best, he might do OK. But he certainly would be a courageous choice.
    Some rewriting of history I see. What Gove achieved in a short period of time at Education was unprecedented. Cut down in his prime by cowardly Cameron.

    He is repeating at his current brief - I’d imagine his budgets as CoTE would be very interesting and potentially game changing.
    No. It has been a fiasco. As I have demonstrated many times with evidence, contrary to the propaganda of Gove himself you and others on here seem to have swallowed.

    If you genuinely believe that having to pull marking criteria for public examinations three months before they are to be sat for the first time because they are so badly written as to be absolutely meaningless is the sign of a successful programme, all I can say is you and I have different notions of success.

    You might also allow for the possibility that the reason I criticise Gove is because being exceptionally highly trained in History and Education and having taught everything from infants to postgrads I actually know what I'm talking about.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Incidentally, I missed Troy last night (was playing KCD). According to Mr. T, and also Tom Holland, on Twitter, it was a bit tedious. Thoughts?
  • TGOHF said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can’t see it myself, Fox is best off doing what he’s doing now - spending as much time as possible several thousand miles away from the U.K.

    Gove would be a good choice, certainly comes under the “Making Brexit a positive force for change” camp. The concern would be how to fill his place at DEFRA, which is vitally important for the next couple of years as we take back policy from the CAP.

    Gove is competent, if abrasive. He would be an excellent choice and deserves a promotion.
    Er, no. He is not competent. He has many good ideas but no idea of how to implement them effectively. That's the opposite of competent.

    He would be a disastrous Chancellor, another Brown.

    Edit - although another way of looking at that is that (contrary to the lies of Dominic Cummings) at Education he sold out to the civil servants. At Education they are of a very low quality, stupid, lazy, ignorant and arrogant. Their Permanent Secretary at that time, Christopher Wormald, was indeed in my experience barely literate.

    At Justice and DEFRA where the quality of his civil servants is rather higher, he has done much better. So it is possible at the Treasury, staffed by the brightest and best, he might do OK. But he certainly would be a courageous choice.
    Some rewriting of history I see. What Gove achieved in a short period of time at Education was unprecedented. Cut down in his prime by cowardly Cameron.

    He is repeating at his current brief - I’d imagine his budgets as CoTE would be very interesting and potentially game changing.

    What did he achieve? He changed structures. Outputs remain pretty much the same. Our kids continue to be coached to pass exams. Nothing more.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960
    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can’t see it myself, Fox is best off doing what he’s doing now - spending as much time as possible several thousand miles away from the U.K.

    Gove would be a good choice, certainly comes under the “Making Brexit a positive force for change” camp. The concern would be how to fill his place at DEFRA, which is vitally important for the next couple of years as we take back policy from the CAP.

    Gove is competent, if abrasive. He would be an excellent choice and deserves a promotion.
    Er, no. He is not competent. He has many good ideas but no idea of how to implement them effectively. That's the opposite of competent.

    He would be a disastrous Chancellor, another Brown.

    Edit - although another way of looking at that is that (contrary to the lies of Dominic Cummings) at Education he sold out to the civil servants. At Education they are of a very low quality, stupid, lazy, ignorant and arrogant. Their Permanent Secretary at that time, Christopher Wormald, was indeed in my experience barely literate.

    At Justice and DEFRA where the quality of his civil servants is rather higher, he has done much better. So it is possible at the Treasury, staffed by the brightest and best, he might do OK. But he certainly would be a courageous choice.
    Some rewriting of history I see. What Gove achieved in a short period of time at Education was unprecedented. Cut down in his prime by cowardly Cameron.

    He is repeating at his current brief - I’d imagine his budgets as CoTE would be very interesting and potentially game changing.
    No. It has been a fiasco. As I have demonstrated many times with evidence, contrary to the propaganda of Gove himself you and others on here seem to have swallowed.

    If you genuinely believe that having to pull marking criteria for public examinations three months before they are to be sat for the first time because they are so badly written as to be absolutely meaningless is the sign of a successful programme, all I can say is you and I have different notions of success.

    You might also allow for the possibility that the reason I criticise Gove is because being exceptionally highly trained in History and Education and having taught everything from infants to postgrads I actually know what I'm talking about.
    Pah, experts. What do they know?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,741
    May can't sack Hammond. The Chancellor is safe for the same reason all the big beasts are safe -- they can trigger a leadership challenge whose victor is uncertain but which will end May's career.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,184
    Jacob Rees-Mogg isn’t even quoted by Paddy Power. If he’s favourite for next Prime Minister and has a background in finance, shouldn’t he at least be on the list?

    (I’d bet against him, mind. He’d be just as an appalling choice for next Chancellor as for next Prime Minister.)
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,295
    Mr Dancer,

    Troy was tedious. Game of thrones it is not.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465

    May can't sack Hammond. The Chancellor is safe for the same reason all the big beasts are safe -- they can trigger a leadership challenge whose victor is uncertain but which will end May's career.

    I'm not sure Hammond has the sort of following that could unseat May.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,295
    Mr Dancer,

    A more considered critique of Troy ... The blokes wore beards and all looked the same so it was difficult to make out who was who. The women kept their clothes on. Helen of Troy? A nice pair but nothing special. And they all seemed to think deep thoughts or spoke in headlines.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,465
    edited February 18
    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    This is also to misunderstand university financing. At the moment there is a fee cap. That is there for a number of reasons. However this does mean that some very expensive courses - like say engineering, science, medicine, languages - run at a loss.

    Therefore universities pack cheaper courses - history, English, Law etc - with students to subsidise these others. That will be even more vital if fees are cut for those expensive courses, which you may have noticed are rather important ones. Incidentally my last job in lecturing before entering teaching was at a university that had hugely over-recruited on history and needed an extra lecturer for twelve months to plug the gaps that were opening in its teaching provision as a result.

    Yet the market is further distorted by the fact Russell Group universities - which ironically often have poor quality teaching - are able to recruit as many students as they wish. Under the circumstances they can and do recruit until they are packed to the gunwales - why would you pay the same to get a degree at Cheltenham as one at Cambridge given the choice? So this model is breaking too. It's not giving the Russell Group time to do research and it's not giving students the best education.

    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
  • Jacob Rees-Mogg isn’t even quoted by Paddy Power. If he’s favourite for next Prime Minister and has a background in finance, shouldn’t he at least be on the list?

    (I’d bet against him, mind. He’d be just as an appalling choice for next Chancellor as for next Prime Minister.)

    As we know, though, competence is not part of the criteria for May’s selection process. If she believes appointing Rees Mogg Chancellor will help her remain in place she will do it.

  • felixfelix Posts: 7,230
    Is it me or do the increasingly frantic twitterings of Lord Adonis resemble those of that Chapman? chappie who had the meltdown in the summer ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788
    edited February 18

    May can't sack Hammond. The Chancellor is safe for the same reason all the big beasts are safe -- they can trigger a leadership challenge whose victor is uncertain but which will end May's career.

    More to the point, Hammond is actually fairly good at his job, and that must carry some weight even in the ship of fools that is our cabinet. His approach to Brexit is also sensible, as slower disengagement is more manageable for both business and government.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,435
    If May picked Fox it would have an horrendous outcome for the Tory Party.. Civil war would not be out of the question.IMHO
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,465
    edited February 18
    felix said:

    Is it me or do the increasingly frantic twitterings of Lord Adonis resemble those of that Chapman? chappie who had the meltdown in the summer ?

    No. Because he was always that useless so I don't think there's been any serious deterioration.

    If it's any consolation to Mr Flahsman (deceased) Adonis was even worse than Gove. Gove at least had good ideas on paper. Adonis was the sort of person whose ideas would have looked awful on gold sheets.

    The difference was that because he was a friend of Tony Blair he could never get anything done.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Mr. CD13, ah, good.

    Mr. Meeks, that is odd. Whether you like Mogg or not, if he's in the running (in markets, at least) for next PM he should be a potential Chancellor, even if it's a long shot.

    Mr. Felix, I forget who, (not Adonis) but one frequent Twitterer compared leaving the EU to the Black Death a week or two ago.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,465

    If May picked Fox it would have an horrendous outcome for the Tory Party.. Civil war would not be out of the question.IMHO

    I don't know. It could be a way for her to bring back fox-hunting but with the LACS firmly on side.

    One way of fulfilling a manifesto pledge!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,184

    Mr. CD13, ah, good.

    Mr. Meeks, that is odd. Whether you like Mogg or not, if he's in the running (in markets, at least) for next PM he should be a potential Chancellor, even if it's a long shot.

    Mr. Felix, I forget who, (not Adonis) but one frequent Twitterer compared leaving the EU to the Black Death a week or two ago.

    It’s not as odd as all that. His only qualification for the top job is to be more extremely Brexity than anyone else. No one is looking to put the most extreme Leaver in a subordinate role. But this mismatch does give an accurate assessment of his capabilities.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,792
    Lay anyone with a qualification in Economics.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,933

    If May picked Fox it would have an horrendous outcome for the Tory Party.. Civil war would not be out of the question.IMHO

    If the horrendous outcome could be confined to the Tory party, I wouldn't mind. Unfortunately, it would also be an horrendous outcome for the country.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960
    Fox's career is interesting. Widely seen to be useless, but unflushable. The benefit of friends.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,741

    May can't sack Hammond. The Chancellor is safe for the same reason all the big beasts are safe -- they can trigger a leadership challenge whose victor is uncertain but which will end May's career.

    I'm not sure Hammond has the sort of following that could unseat May.
    The number of followers needed to unseat May is probably in single figures; it depends how many letters Brady is already sitting on at the 1922 Committee. Hammond might only need another half dozen or so to meet the trigger threshold. Once that is done, then followers of everyone else can vote for their man or woman. The only certainty is the PM is toast. Theresa May knows that which is why the last reshuffle was a damp squib, despite the cries to sack Boris, Hammond or even Jeremy Hunt.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960

    May can't sack Hammond. The Chancellor is safe for the same reason all the big beasts are safe -- they can trigger a leadership challenge whose victor is uncertain but which will end May's career.

    I'm not sure Hammond has the sort of following that could unseat May.
    The number of followers needed to unseat May is probably in single figures; it depends how many letters Brady is already sitting on at the 1922 Committee. Hammond might only need another half dozen or so to meet the trigger threshold. Once that is done, then followers of everyone else can vote for their man or woman. The only certainty is the PM is toast. Theresa May knows that which is why the last reshuffle was a damp squib, despite the cries to sack Boris, Hammond or even Jeremy Hunt.
    In office, but not in power.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,768

    Mr. CD13, ah, good.

    Mr. Meeks, that is odd. Whether you like Mogg or not, if he's in the running (in markets, at least) for next PM he should be a potential Chancellor, even if it's a long shot.

    Mr. Felix, I forget who, (not Adonis) but one frequent Twitterer compared leaving the EU to the Black Death a week or two ago.

    That’s why it’s called TWIT-ter.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,465
    Jonathan said:

    Fox's career is interesting. Widely seen to be useless, but unflushable. The benefit of friends.

    He can't be hounded out of office.

    I'll get my coat...
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,741
    Foxy said:

    May can't sack Hammond. The Chancellor is safe for the same reason all the big beasts are safe -- they can trigger a leadership challenge whose victor is uncertain but which will end May's career.

    More to the point, Hammond is actually fairly good at his job, and that must carry some weight even in the ship of fools that is our cabinet. His approach to Brexit is also sensible, as slower disengagement is more manageable for both business and government.
    Yes, I'm keeping Hammond onside in the next PM betting because it seems likely that as we get closer to Brexit, Hammond will be seen to have been right.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,188
    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can’t see it myself, Fox is best off doing what he’s doing now - spending as much time as possible several thousand miles away from the U.K.

    Gove would be a good choice, certainly comes under the “Making Brexit a positive force for change” camp. The concern would be how to fill his place at DEFRA, which is vitally important for the next couple of years as we take back policy from the CAP.

    Gove is competent, if abrasive. He would be an excellent choice and deserves a promotion.
    Er, no. He is not competent. He has many good ideas but no idea of how to implement them effectively. That's the opposite of competent.

    He would be a disastrous Chancellor, another Brown.

    Edit - although another way of looking at that is that (contrary to the lies of Dominic Cummings) at Education he sold out to the civil servants. At Education they are of a very low quality, stupid, lazy, ignorant and arrogant. Their Permanent Secretary at that time, Christopher Wormald, was indeed in my experience barely literate.

    At Justice and DEFRA where the quality of his civil servants is rather higher, he has done much better. So it is possible at the Treasury, staffed by the brightest and best, he might do OK. But he certainly would be a courageous choice.
    Your alternative way of looking at it is indeed interesting, and somewhat reinforced by the fact that the long serving number two at Education - Nick Gibb - is indubitably an idiot.

    My own view is that Gove suffers from absolute confidence in his own ideas, and impatient of inconvenient stuff which doesn't fit with them. Where simple reform is necessary, that can ben a strength; for more complicated tasks, his impatience with complexity can be very damaging.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,193

    TGOHF said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Can’t see it myself, Fox is best off doing what he’s doing now - spending as much time as possible several thousand miles away from the U.K.

    Gove would be a good choice, certainly comes under the “Making Brexit a positive force for change” camp. The concern would be how to fill his place at DEFRA, which is vitally important for the next couple of years as we take back policy from the CAP.

    Gove is competent, if abrasive. He would be an excellent choice and deserves a promotion.
    Er, no. He is not competent. He has many good ideas but no idea of how to implement them effectively. That's the opposite of competent.

    He would be a disastrous Chancellor, another Brown.

    Edit - although another way of looking at that is that (contrary to the lies of Dominic Cummings) at Education he sold out to the civil servants. At Education they are of a very low quality, stupid, lazy, ignorant and arrogant. Their Permanent Secretary at that time, Christopher Wormald, was indeed in my experience barely literate.

    At Justice and DEFRA where the quality of his civil servants is rather higher, he has done much better. So it is possible at the Treasury, staffed by the brightest and best, he might do OK. But he certainly would be a courageous choice.
    Some rewriting of history I see. What Gove achieved in a short period of time at Education was unprecedented. Cut down in his prime by cowardly Cameron.

    He is repeating at his current brief - I’d imagine his budgets as CoTE would be very interesting and potentially game changing.

    What did he achieve? He changed structures. Outputs remain pretty much the same. Our kids continue to be coached to pass exams. Nothing more.

    Well, he managed to setup structures to facilitate Academy chains stealing money from schools.

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/21/collapsing-wakefield-city-academies-trust-asset-stripped-schools-millions-say-furious-parents
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184

    Mr. CD13, ah, good.

    Mr. Meeks, that is odd. Whether you like Mogg or not, if he's in the running (in markets, at least) for next PM he should be a potential Chancellor, even if it's a long shot.

    Mr. Felix, I forget who, (not Adonis) but one frequent Twitterer compared leaving the EU to the Black Death a week or two ago.

    Surely it's precisely because he's seen as a possible leadership contender that there is no way May would promote him directly from the backbencher to so powerful a cabinet post ?

    (If we're seriously considering Fox as a possibility, then actual qualification for the post is obviously an irrelevance.)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465

    May can't sack Hammond. The Chancellor is safe for the same reason all the big beasts are safe -- they can trigger a leadership challenge whose victor is uncertain but which will end May's career.

    I'm not sure Hammond has the sort of following that could unseat May.
    The number of followers needed to unseat May is probably in single figures; it depends how many letters Brady is already sitting on at the 1922 Committee. Hammond might only need another half dozen or so to meet the trigger threshold. Once that is done, then followers of everyone else can vote for their man or woman. The only certainty is the PM is toast. Theresa May knows that which is why the last reshuffle was a damp squib, despite the cries to sack Boris, Hammond or even Jeremy Hunt.
    Conversely, quite a few letters might be retrieved from Brady - if May were to boot Hammond out of 11 Downing Street.....
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,193
    I mean, never mind the enormously expensive an inefficient management structures that Gove introduced to the Education sector - just look a the asset stripping.

    Public schools have been privatised by stealth and their wealth siphoned off to private companies.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,475

    May can't sack Hammond. The Chancellor is safe for the same reason all the big beasts are safe -- they can trigger a leadership challenge whose victor is uncertain but which will end May's career.

    I'm not sure Hammond has the sort of following that could unseat May.
    The number of followers needed to unseat May is probably in single figures; it depends how many letters Brady is already sitting on at the 1922 Committee. Hammond might only need another half dozen or so to meet the trigger threshold. Once that is done, then followers of everyone else can vote for their man or woman. The only certainty is the PM is toast. Theresa May knows that which is why the last reshuffle was a damp squib, despite the cries to sack Boris, Hammond or even Jeremy Hunt.
    Conversely, quite a few letters might be retrieved from Brady - if May were to boot Hammond out of 11 Downing Street.....
    Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest...

    One of my big takeaways from the Fall Out book was that Hammond doesn't seem popular
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,726
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    I agree with that analysis. I think I'll pinch it and add it to "in my opinion". . Hope you don't mind.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    Hammond will probably stay as Chancellor for the remainder of May's premiership, it would be too damaging for her to sack him and leave him as an enemy on the backbenches.

    Gove is therefore his most likely successor at the moment, in the event of a future Boris or JRM leadership
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,184
    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    This is also to misunderstand university financing. At the moment there is a fee cap. That is there for a number of reasons. However this does mean that some very expensive courses - like say engineering, science, medicine, languages - run at a loss.

    Therefore universities pack cheaper courses - history, English, Law etc - with students to subsidise these others. That will be even more vital if fees are cut for those expensive courses, which you may have noticed are rather important ones. Incidentally my last job in lecturing before entering teaching was at a university that had hugely over-recruited on history and needed an extra lecturer for twelve months to plug the gaps that were opening in its teaching provision as a result.

    Yet the market is further distorted by the fact Russell Group universities - which ironically often have poor quality teaching - are able to recruit as many students as they wish. Under the circumstances they can and do recruit until they are packed to the gunwales - why would you pay the same to get a degree at Cheltenham as one at Cambridge given the choice? So this model is breaking too. It's not giving the Russell Group time to do research and it's not giving students the best education.

    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I'd incline towards 2).

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,741

    May can't sack Hammond. The Chancellor is safe for the same reason all the big beasts are safe -- they can trigger a leadership challenge whose victor is uncertain but which will end May's career.

    I'm not sure Hammond has the sort of following that could unseat May.
    The number of followers needed to unseat May is probably in single figures; it depends how many letters Brady is already sitting on at the 1922 Committee. Hammond might only need another half dozen or so to meet the trigger threshold. Once that is done, then followers of everyone else can vote for their man or woman. The only certainty is the PM is toast. Theresa May knows that which is why the last reshuffle was a damp squib, despite the cries to sack Boris, Hammond or even Jeremy Hunt.
    Conversely, quite a few letters might be retrieved from Brady - if May were to boot Hammond out of 11 Downing Street.....
    The crucial point is that Theresa May cannot know this, or what will be the net effect as letters are withdrawn, then added from Hammond's friends, then more added if the new Chancellor comes from the "wrong" faction (which is inevitable from the point of view of one side or the other). From Number 10 the choice is clear: defenestrate Hammond, or Boris, or almost anyone else, and it is Goodnight Vienna and how much can I get for the memoirs? The PM could not even move Jeremy Hunt who is hardly the darling of the rubber chicken circuit.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,188
    Barnesian said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    I agree with that analysis. I think I'll pinch it and add it to "in my opinion". . Hope you don't mind.
    We’ll make a Conservative of you yet...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    edited February 18
    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    Trump's approval rating is 41.4% according to the latest 538 figures. He won the election with 46% so he's retaining about 90% of his support at the moment.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    Yup, and with a bunch of tax cuts and infrastructure spending coming online he's probably going to get more popular - in spite of the daily hate from most of the media.

    If the Democrats pick someone who's going to spend the 2020 election campaign talking about bathrooms while Trump is talking about jobs, they'll lose to him again. So far they look as if they want to double down on their strategy of getting massive majorities in NY and California where it doesn't matter.
    Biden and Sanders lead current polling for the 2020 Democratic nomination, both of those have more appeal to the rustbelt than Hillary did, though admittedly a Warren or Harris or Booker nomination would be one with little appeal beyond the coasts
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    If courses have a lower graduate earnings premium then no reason a lower tuition fee cannot be charged for them
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,077
    Fox as CoE? You are having a laugh TSE. May isn't that stupid.

    Oh wait...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465

    May can't sack Hammond. The Chancellor is safe for the same reason all the big beasts are safe -- they can trigger a leadership challenge whose victor is uncertain but which will end May's career.

    I'm not sure Hammond has the sort of following that could unseat May.
    The number of followers needed to unseat May is probably in single figures; it depends how many letters Brady is already sitting on at the 1922 Committee. Hammond might only need another half dozen or so to meet the trigger threshold. Once that is done, then followers of everyone else can vote for their man or woman. The only certainty is the PM is toast. Theresa May knows that which is why the last reshuffle was a damp squib, despite the cries to sack Boris, Hammond or even Jeremy Hunt.
    Conversely, quite a few letters might be retrieved from Brady - if May were to boot Hammond out of 11 Downing Street.....
    The crucial point is that Theresa May cannot know this, or what will be the net effect as letters are withdrawn, then added from Hammond's friends, then more added if the new Chancellor comes from the "wrong" faction (which is inevitable from the point of view of one side or the other). From Number 10 the choice is clear: defenestrate Hammond, or Boris, or almost anyone else, and it is Goodnight Vienna and how much can I get for the memoirs? The PM could not even move Jeremy Hunt who is hardly the darling of the rubber chicken circuit.
    It was quite easy for Jeremy Hunt to argue "We are just going into the winter flu epidemic period. If that goes badly, I get the blame. If you change the Minister and it goes badly, you get the blame - for creating unnecessary disruption at a crucial time. Your call, Prime Minister....."
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,417
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    Trump's approval rating is 41.4% according to the latest 538 figures. He won the election with 46% so he's retaining about 90% of his support at the moment.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    Yup, and with a bunch of tax cuts and infrastructure spending coming online he's probably going to get more popular - in spite of the daily hate from most of the media.

    If the Democrats pick someone who's going to spend the 2020 election campaign talking about bathrooms while Trump is talking about jobs, they'll lose to him again. So far they look as if they want to double down on their strategy of getting massive majorities in NY and California where it doesn't matter.
    Biden and Sanders lead current polling for the 2020 Democratic nomination, both of those have more appeal to the rustbelt than Hillary did, though admittedly a Warren or Harris or Booker nomination would be one with little appeal beyond the coasts
    If Biden had stood last time he would be President now. I understand his given reasons for not doing so, but genuinely don’t know if it was his decision or that of his party.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    Trump's approval rating is 41.4% according to the latest 538 figures. He won the election with 46% so he's retaining about 90% of his support at the moment.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    Yup, and with a bunch of tax cuts and infrastructure spending coming online he's probably going to get more popular - in spite of the daily hate from most of the media.

    If the Democrats pick someone who's going to spend the 2020 election campaign talking about bathrooms while Trump is talking about jobs, they'll lose to him again. So far they look as if they want to double down on their strategy of getting massive majorities in NY and California where it doesn't matter.
    Biden and Sanders lead current polling for the 2020 Democratic nomination, both of those have more appeal to the rustbelt than Hillary did, though admittedly a Warren or Harris or Booker nomination would be one with little appeal beyond the coasts
    If Biden had stood last time he would be President now. I understand his given reasons for not doing so, but genuinely don’t know if it was his decision or that of his party.
    More the strength of the Hillary machine, at least in terms of the Democratic Party
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,077
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    Trump's approval rating is 41.4% according to the latest 538 figures. He won the election with 46% so he's retaining about 90% of his support at the moment.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    Yup, and with a bunch of tax cuts and infrastructure spending coming online he's probably going to get more popular - in spite of the daily hate from most of the media.

    If the Democrats pick someone who's going to spend the 2020 election campaign talking about bathrooms while Trump is talking about jobs, they'll lose to him again. So far they look as if they want to double down on their strategy of getting massive majorities in NY and California where it doesn't matter.
    Biden and Sanders lead current polling for the 2020 Democratic nomination, both of those have more appeal to the rustbelt than Hillary did, though admittedly a Warren or Harris or Booker nomination would be one with little appeal beyond the coasts
    If Biden had stood last time he would be President now. I understand his given reasons for not doing so, but genuinely don’t know if it was his decision or that of his party.
    Totally agree. His one major contribution last time was a speech that called Trump and all his lies, a "bunch of a malarky". Brilliant. And just what was needed and HRC wasn't doing.
  • I know who id bring in....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,224
    Presumably May does know how many "Resign!" letters have come in - Brady isn't allowed to tell her the names (I think) but I'm sure he can say she's on 42 or whatever. This just has to be the reason that her reshuffles are so feeble - with the Sword of Damocles dangling on a spider's afterthought, she can't sack Hammond or do anything else significant on the Cabinet side. So we're probably looking at the Chancellor post-May, which depends very heavily on the new PM. Quite a lottery, but Gove seems a fair bet - intellectually strong, had lots of good publicity and impresses everyone in his current job, yet probably not a likely PM himself.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,805

    Presumably May does know how many "Resign!" letters have come in - Brady isn't allowed to tell her the names (I think) but I'm sure he can say she's on 42 or whatever. This just has to be the reason that her reshuffles are so feeble - with the Sword of Damocles dangling on a spider's afterthought, she can't sack Hammond or do anything else significant on the Cabinet side. So we're probably looking at the Chancellor post-May, which depends very heavily on the new PM. Quite a lottery, but Gove seems a fair bet - intellectually strong, had lots of good publicity and impresses everyone in his current job, yet probably not a likely PM himself.

    Hopefully not Nick, I personally think from the evidence that Gove is an absolute useless tube. He thinks he is good but he is deluded and an absolute plonker.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    Jim Naughtie talking about how the "culture wars" have reached Britain on Radio 4.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,859
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    Doesn't the current system have record numbers of people from less well-off backgrounds going to university? The problem with the system before fees is that it was very limited in terms of numbers of places.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403

    Presumably May does know how many "Resign!" letters have come in - Brady isn't allowed to tell her the names (I think) but I'm sure he can say she's on 42 or whatever. This just has to be the reason that her reshuffles are so feeble - with the Sword of Damocles dangling on a spider's afterthought, she can't sack Hammond or do anything else significant on the Cabinet side. So we're probably looking at the Chancellor post-May, which depends very heavily on the new PM. Quite a lottery, but Gove seems a fair bet - intellectually strong, had lots of good publicity and impresses everyone in his current job, yet probably not a likely PM himself.

    I'd be interested to know whether Brady really does tell the prime minister the numbers.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,188
    edited February 18
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    You misunderstand: in my model the taxpayer would subsidise kids from poor backgrounds to make courses affordable to everyone who justifies a place on them (within the overall spending envelope allocated the government).

    If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    edited February 18
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    I think higher education should be free, with the maximum number of students that can feasibly be supported by the government. I don't know what that figure would be — 20%, 25%, 30% perhaps.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960
    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    Doesn't the current system have record numbers of people from less well-off backgrounds going to university? The problem with the system before fees is that it was very limited in terms of numbers of places.
    I have never heard a an argument to explain why it's essential that education is free until 18, but some kind of optional luxury afterwards.

    Certainly in studying physics there was no magic barrier. If anything the stuff you learn after 18 is more essential.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,296
    Dura_Ace said:

    Whoever it is will have to step over the twitching corpse of Lance Bombardier Williamson to get it.

    That's a positive at least..
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,768
    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    Doesn't the current system have record numbers of people from less well-off backgrounds going to university? The problem with the system before fees is that it was very limited in terms of numbers of places.
    One problem is that many professions, suc as accountancy and law, which once relied on articles with part-time study leading to qualification noe expect starters to come with degrees. Could we, should we go back to that?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,457
    Alistair said:

    I mean, never mind the enormously expensive an inefficient management structures that Gove introduced to the Education sector - just look a the asset stripping.

    Public schools have been privatised by stealth and their wealth siphoned off to private companies.

    Performance in the basics in England is on the up - compare and contrast with Scotland where standards have imploded.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960
    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    You misunderstand: in my model the taxpayer would subsidise kids from poor backgrounds to make courses affordable to everyone who justifies a place on them (within the overall spending envelope allocated the government).

    If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
    Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,188
    AndyJS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    I think higher education should be free, with the maximum number of students that can feasibly be supported by the government. I don't know what that figure would be — 20%, 25%, 30% perhaps.
    Why should poor working people subsidise rich kids to go to university?
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    I love the way that the word "hardline" is often added for leavers who want to implement the referendum result, but never to remoaners who want to frustrate democracy.

    Perhaps May will promote a woman to chancellor for the first time. Perhaps she will be bold, and not promote a big beast to the job and make one of the newer younger ministers chancellor, possibly as a springboard for the premiership.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    edited February 18
    O/T

    It looks like Mary Beard has been on the receiving end of some pretty disgusting tweets after she defended Oxfam.

    http://twitter.com/wmarybeard
  • Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    You misunderstand: in my model the taxpayer would subsidise kids from poor backgrounds to make courses affordable to everyone who justifies a place on them (within the overall spending envelope allocated the government).

    If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
    Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .

    I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.

  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,482
    Brilliant stuff as always from Dutchsinse on the cause of yesterday's earthquake:

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    edited February 18
    Charles said:

    AndyJS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    I think higher education should be free, with the maximum number of students that can feasibly be supported by the government. I don't know what that figure would be — 20%, 25%, 30% perhaps.
    Why should poor working people subsidise rich kids to go to university?
    It shouldn't be about rich or poor; it should be about those with the most potential being supported, whatever type of background they come from.
  • First interview I have seen with Damian Hinds seems just to announce a review of tuition fees and higher education and no substance. Not really impressed.

    He needs to get this review done quickly and start making decisions.

    Not on my radar for leader
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,188
    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:



    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities. That would see huge fees at some places e.g. ICL and low fees at others. But the others might offer a way in to postgrad work for students from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.

    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    You misunderstand: in my model the taxpayer would subsidise kids from poor backgrounds to make courses affordable to everyone who justifies a place on them (within the overall spending envelope allocated the government).

    If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
    Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .
    By focusing resources on those who can’t afford it otherwise you are reducing the deadweight cost of supporting those who wold go anyway

    If you position it correctly I suspect - for example - a university would choose a kid with a state academic scholarship over a full fee paying kid because it signals they are smart
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees ants from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    You misunderstand: in my model the taxpayer would subsidise kids from poor backgrounds to make courses affordable to everyone who justifies a place on them (within the overall spending envelope allocated the government).

    If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
    Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .

    I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.

    Means testing . What if you had just failed to get the grant? What then?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,805
    TGOHF said:

    Alistair said:

    I mean, never mind the enormously expensive an inefficient management structures that Gove introduced to the Education sector - just look a the asset stripping.

    Public schools have been privatised by stealth and their wealth siphoned off to private companies.

    Performance in the basics in England is on the up - compare and contrast with Scotland where standards have imploded.
    Usual lying bigoted bollox from you Harry, you really have a downer on your country of birth. You must have failed big time at home before having to slink off with your tail between your legs.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees ants from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    You misunderstand: in government).

    If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
    Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .

    I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.

    Means testing . What if you had just failed to get the grant? What then?

    It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,188
    AndyJS said:

    Charles said:

    AndyJS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:



    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees and student numbers and allow for a full market across all 113 universities.

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.

    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer is to make universities entirely free standing and independent of government and allow them to charge what they feel appropriate for their courses. This will ensure clear market pricing and reflect the relative value of different courses and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and rightly one to debate at that level. This could be to subsidise certain courses which are seen as adding greater social value (eg STEM or Medicine); or to support individuals financially for academic or other social reasons (eg poverty or social exclusion); or perhaps to support specific institutions that are seeing as adding extra value (eg Open University). At election times there would then be a debate on the right amount to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    I think higher education should be free, with the maximum number of students that can feasibly be supported by the government. I don't know what that figure would be — 20%, 25%, 30% perhaps.
    Why should poor working people subsidise rich kids to go to university?
    It shouldn't be about rich or poor; it should be about those with the most potential being supported, whatever type of background they come from.
    Sure. Let’s say the government can afford to fund 100 places.

    Why give one of those places to a Wykehamist (whose parents can afford the cost) and thereby deny a life-altering opportunity to a bright kid from the back streets of Liverpool?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,425
    Surely not Liam Fox as Chancellor?' I know that post requires no ability with with numbers, but not someone who is unaware that a 90% fall in Foreign Direct Investments is not a "record breaking year", except in a sense he didn't intend.

    Does Liam Fox have any ability in ANYTHING? Was he any good as a doctor?
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - is Peston really this thick ?


    We have two options:

    1) abolish the cap on fees ants from poorer backgrounds as cost of living is also a consideration (Carlisle is not the world's best university but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Reading).

    2) accept that universities are a public good, will run at a headline loss and therefore need taxpayer subsidy, in which case we need to dramatically restructure and shrink the entire HE sector.

    I don't know which, but we need to decide fast.

    Incidentally Radio 5 had somebody from the Higher Education Policy Institute on this morning. He talked a lot of sense especially on part time learners. Well worth listening to if you can find it.
    I am going to go with option 3....

    The issue is there are 2 questions that get conflated: (a) how do we finance tertiary education and (b) how to we capture the social benefit from higher education. You need to separate these.

    The answer and institutions.

    Then there is a government resource allocation decision to capture social benefit. This is a political decision and to spend on tertiary education and on how those resources should be allocated.
    Nasty regressive solution. The students ability to pay should not come into. Your so called market will be dominated by the wealthy.
    You misunderstand: in government).

    If some rich thick kid wants to pay £100,000 to study basket weaving at Pontypandy University that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect support from the taxpayer to do so
    Means testing creates a second class student. Why should a talented poor or middle class have to jump through additional hoops? There are enough barriers anyway. Each according to their talent , not daddy's bank account and connections .

    I got a full grant in the 1980s after my parents were means-tested. It was no big deal and certainly didn’t make me feel second class.

    Means testing . What if you had just failed to get the grant? What then?

    It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.

    That's correct. We need to stop this reflexive dislike of 'means testing'. We do need robust controls to stop the middle classes gaming the system, naturally.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960


    It wasn’t all or nothing as far as I remember. You could also get partial grants. Only kids from the wealthiest families got no grant at all. It was pretty generous - and we could claim housing benefit and get the dole in the summer.

    Ah. The good old days. When education was seen as good thing and young people were incentivised to take it.

    I suspect agreement on this subject is unlikely. One reform I would like to see is students treated more like independent adults. The more you bring parental wealth into the equation, the less independent you people are encouraged to be.




  • Awb683Awb683 Posts: 21
    Michael Gove has been good in all previous appointments.
This discussion has been closed.