|
jabby posted:The media decide whether or not they let themselves be 'managed'. It is entirely within the power of journalists to look at what Theresa May is doing and say 'you aren't answering our questions and are actively avoiding scrutiny. Also you lied about a bunch of stuff', but they don't. Instead they nod and smile when the microphone is taken away from them before they can ask a difficult question and go write an article about how amazing Theresa May is at managing the press. You're right of course, but a good opposition can manipulate the press into asking these questions. Every single time Corbyn or a member of the shadow cabinet is on camera they should be mentioning "Lying Theresa May," every single time she ducks a question a labour source should be somewhere saying she ducked the question because she's either a liar or incompetent. The one thing the papers want more than a Tory government is more money. At the moment there's no interesting narrative about Theresa May, but there is one about Jeremy Corbyn, which is "Communist Grandpa who's in over his head." A more media savvy labour office would spend time ensuring that every single interview by every MP as part of the party cast Theresa May as an incompetant liar trying to herd a band of fascist lemmings. If you make that the story that people want to read about then that's the story the papers will flock to because nothing beats cash.
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/LabourEoin/status/861992523455242241 Adam Boulton acting like an absolute bell. Sarah Champion deals with him pretty well
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:On the other hand they hit you based entirely on your household income which probably means your parents' income which may not have any bearing on your income after you've already got them. To clarify. I wish to god university could just be free and anyone could go and I wish that could be done by taxing the rich more. Hell that would impact my own income significantly, but I don't mind earning less so anyone can go to uni. (I reserve my right to grumble about how much pay I lose to the taxman though) However, I don't think higher taxes are a palatable public option because people suck. Given that, I think a strong way of getting more poor people to university is through a fee that redistributes income from grads who are doing well to either grads doing poorly or to learning at a Key Stage 1-4 level where often the education gap between people who are well off and those who are not generally develops. Edit: It was my mistake for not mentioning funding assumptions initially.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
It worked fine before 1998. Ultimately fees are dumping tax load on people in the vicinity of the median earning range instead of on the rich cunts who benefit most in the country and I see no reason to support that. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:49 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It worked fine before 1998. Okay but prior to 1998 a number of universities were claiming that underfunding meant that they were struggling to compete on a global stage. You can rubbish those claims and if you do fair enough, but I'm naive enough to believe that the universities weren't lying. Both of us agree that the rich should pay for the poorest. Unfortunately it's really goddamn difficult to make the rich pay whilst retaining public support. (Because this country is a gigantic shitshow). Absent that ability, I'm happy for median earners to subsidise the poor.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
the explicit and implicit rationale of fees was to increase intakes. globalstagery was a sideshow. foreigners pay full fare. one should define 'rich', in sense of a binary "should net fund, rather than net benefit from, public transfers". upper third? upper fifth? upper 1%? upper 0.1%?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
ronya posted:the explicit and implicit rationale of fees was to increase intakes. globalstagery was a sideshow. foreigners pay full fare. I'd define rich as those who by income hit the higher rate tax band. I'm unsure of a good measure of wealth by which to define rich.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Education should be free to use and funded by taxing the wealthiest in society who may or may not be graduates and whose wealth may or may not be generated by graduates. There is no good reason to have tuition fees any more than there would be to charge people for using the NHS. Education should be free, certainly. Subsidising the drinking budgets of feckless youth in manchild daycare for three years before they drop out of a Media Studies course should not.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Corbyn rally in York was good. Got a pile of LaRouche literature from some Citizens Electoral Council of Australia people. Australians in York handing out leaflets in support of American banking legislation.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Education should be free, certainly. Subsidising the drinking budgets of feckless youth in manchild daycare for three years before they drop out of a Media Studies course should not. Do all right wing people read from the same lovely script?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Paperhouse posted:https://twitter.com/LabourEoin/status/861992523455242241 Sarah Champion always seems wonderful, is there a reason she doesn't get talked about for the leadership?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Education should be free, certainly. Subsidising the drinking budgets of feckless youth in manchild daycare for three years before they drop out of a Media Studies course should not. I'm sure you would prefer they be indentured but you can also gently caress off, slavery boy.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:They don't impact the poorest because they only hit you once you earn above £21k which isn't living like a king or anything, but is still appreciable income. People on the lowest incomes will be, by and large, non-graduates. The median graduate salary is well above the median national salary. Yorkshire Tea posted:So effectively the abolition of tuition fees allow the middle classes to do better at the cost of income to the state that could be distributed to the poorest and they're not proven to have a significant impact on university application. Even if they were, the very cash channeled from the rich fucker who earns £100k at Goldman could be channeled to provide much poorer people better access to university education. The cash would be better channelled through rising income tax. As things stand, the system does very well for the very wealthy because it's paid off the fastest (so the total repayable is the smallest it can be). The people who do worst are the people who are in the middle, those who earn enough to be paying an appreciable amount back but not enough to pay it off (or only just pay it off) before the debt expires. When the increased university fees were passing through parliament, HEPI put out a paper suggesting that it was a worse system for the students, for the universities and for the government. It's got absolutely no advantages over the old system.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:Sarah Champion always seems wonderful, is there a reason she doesn't get talked about for the leadership? I've never seen her before. She seems really good.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Education should be free, certainly. Subsidising the drinking budgets of feckless youth in manchild daycare for three years before they drop out of a Media Studies course should not. Now, I'm not fortunate enough to have attended university (I say fortunate enough, it was my fault for being a lazy poo poo in school who didn't appreciate the opportunity he had) but I can still say with some confidence that free tuition does not subsidise a student's drinking budget, you loving moron. The added bonus is that a better educated populace can better understand the world around, are less likely to be conned by bullshit ideas like austerity and other right-wing canards. Y'know, like slavery being good for those savages in the colonies. University is a net positive for society.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
take comfort in that the left will actually be represented in parliament in the uk we'll be lucky if we get 10 mps for our splintered left wing parties
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
higher taxes to buy tuition were and are not politically saleable, for the reason that kapparomeo put a finger on - it can only gain the political consent via a degree of control which, as OF has helpfully highlighted, is contrary to public sentiment but the same policy objectives can be achieved with income-contingent repayment for the broad upper-middle, and means-tested tax-funded grants to perform the redistribution for the minority of cases. this was not a realization limited to technocrats in the UK, as a note ronya fucked around with this message at 17:40 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Education should be free, certainly. Subsidising the drinking budgets of feckless youth in manchild daycare for three years before they drop out of a Media Studies course should not. Maybe if more people understood how the media worked we wouldn't have so many people like yourself, who just parrot whatever nonsense they're told
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Did someone say Jam? I have the man.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Free tuition works fine in England's European neighbors, like Scotland.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Alertrelic posted:Free tuition works fine in England's European neighbors, like Scotland. Free tuition is entirely responsible for the Orange Order in Scotland, says someone. Probably.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:Sarah Champion always seems wonderful, is there a reason she doesn't get talked about for the leadership? I'm guessing it's as simple as she doesn't want it. She's also been an MP only 5 years so might not feel like she's experienced enough. She nominated Corbyn for leader, resigned in the coup but has returned to the front bench, so I guess it depends on how much the coup has poisoned her brand on the left of the party.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Alertrelic posted:Free tuition works fine in England's European neighbors, like Scotland. It really doesn't, the SNP gutted 6th form colleges to pay for it so yeah you can have your free tuition if you get the grades which you have no chance of getting it you are working class. Which is why Scotland does steadily worse for working class entry to uni than England.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
ronya posted:higher taxes to buy tuition were and are not politically saleable, for the reason that kapparomeo put a finger on - it can only gain the political consent via a degree of control which, as OF has helpfully highlighted, is contrary to public sentiment That's defeatist though (i know how odd in this thread). Other countres manage public funded higher tuition without being communist utopia. You might be right that in the current political clima in the UK it's not a vote winner but chasing the imagined base voter instinct gets immigration mugs and austerity 2: starve harder
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I'd define rich as those who by income hit the higher rate tax band. Income != Wealth - and I hope you mean "highest" not "higher" as 33k a year does not make you "rich" anywhere in the country.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:Income != Wealth - and I hope you mean "highest" not "higher" as 33k a year does not make you "rich" anywhere in the country. You literally ignored the second sentence of the post where I noted wealth was another factor and said I didn't have a decent metric by which to measure it. Per the HMRC website the higher rate tax band of 40% stands at £45k a year income and onwards. Tax bands changed as of April this year, so the £33k figure is out of date. Link: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/current-rates-and-allowances
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:Income != Wealth - and I hope you mean "highest" not "higher" as 33k a year does not make you "rich" anywhere in the country. It makes you above average so definitely in the rich range, although I guess the whole point of this discussion is that there isn't a definitive fixed point. Which is why Marxist analysis is better because you have to argue over pretty discrete categories (what capital is owned and how is it used) rather than just whether a £ notation is meaningful. namesake fucked around with this message at 18:08 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:Tuition fees are the biggest red herring in the loving world for the left. They don't impact the poorest because they only hit you once you earn above £21k which isn't living like a king or anything, but is still appreciable income. Even then, they're scaled in such a way that you're not going to be earning less if you hit that threshold. So someone from a rich family who pays the fees up front pays £27k while someone on a middling public sector income pays ~£80k over 30 years. Rightio. You're a loving moron. Tuition fees aren't terrible because of their effect on just the poorest. They're terrible because they're bad for everyone except the richest. The only red herring is claiming scrapping tuition fees is just a big bung to the middle class whilst completely ignoring we have a thing called income tax.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
namesake posted:It makes you above average so definitely in the rich range salary != wealth and there are large parts of the country where it doesn't make you "above average" Yorkshire Tea posted:You literally ignored the second sentence of the post where I noted wealth was another factor and said I didn't have a decent metric by which to measure it. Easiest way to measure wealth in the UK is age purely becuse of how hosed up our housing market is and the way that has lead to the greatest transfer in wealth between generations in history (because so much of the average person's wealth is encoded in the property they own) - you can claim that it's unfair but it's more fair than describing someone who earns 33k - or 45k - a year as "rich" without knowing how much their housing costs (price per sq/m or whatever metric you want to use that doesn't make people living in literal castles seem poor.)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Someone who is earning £25k after university is now only paying 1% less in their marginal tax than someone older earning over £45k. It's an intergenerational flat tax for anyone on a normal income.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Get the gently caress off our streets, nazi Is he even on our streets? I thought he was German. Can we deport him from this thread after Brexit?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Stabbatical posted:True. But how? What could possibly work, if nothing has before now? Say that increased spending on social services means jobs. Say that it means growth. Say that it means a stronger economy. Don't say that scroungers and invalids will lead better, safer lives. For every person who gives a poo poo, another won't and one more will be annoyed at the idea. If the Conservatives say that Labour want to bankrupt Britain by raising your taxes and spending all the money, don't say "but people are in need!". Say that spending is good and will make us all richer. Appeal to self-interest. It works on everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
a lot of people are being called nazi itt, these days
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Tution worked so well before, Labour are reviving the lib dem pledge. Or not. Or something else entirely. Labour's manifesto is being announced in full next week.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Copula is actually a nazi afaik. Romeo is just a slavery apologist.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Looke posted:a lot of people are being called nazi itt, these days We get a general uptick in nazi shitheads during any election, referendum, or other big political event, yes.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Looke posted:a lot of people are being called nazi itt, these days The others are just shitheads with no empathy but GC is an actual nazi that shits up the Europol thread.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:Sarah Champion always seems wonderful, is there a reason she doesn't get talked about for the leadership? She's supporting Corbyn and would find it hard to get PLP votes because of it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:I'd define rich as those who by income hit the higher rate tax band. Is your pile of money so large it is in effect self repleneshing (due to interest and a low risk investment portfolio) through no effort on your part.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
a pipe smoking dog posted:Sarah Champion always seems wonderful, is there a reason she doesn't get talked about for the leadership? There was that whole thing the red tops dug up about her divorce and being cautioned by the police that was spun as DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SPOKESWOMEN SPENT NIGHT IN JAIL FOR HITTING HUSBAND So not off to a great start for a leadership bid
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 19:56
|
|
