That was just a single example, there's quite a few more. On the opposite side there's not a single wealth distribution policy. Up till fairly recently they were actually known as the tartan Tories.

"fairly recently" meaning last century and in any case they were only "known as" that in Labour party circles.

If you believe that article is factually incorrect in the claim it makes about students from disadvantaged backgrounds then show the data (I know that you tend not to go for the evidence based approach though) But as I say you're moving onto another point.

Re students in Scotland not being saddled with debt, they are but its debt they are having to take out to make up their bursaries rather than tuition fees. I'll link to a study that's analysed the data when I'm back at my computer.

Yes obviously it is a graduate tax, but it is still debt and has to be paid off. It's actually much harder to avoid than other debts. You don't need to be earning much to start paying it off which leaves young graduates paying extra tax when they are already struggling.

The point is that kids are being priced out of going to university. 27k + about 15k living costs loan = 42k in debt before you even get started.

You understand that a 40k income leaves some families as 'working poor' right? No holidays, no cars, no mortgages. And they have to pay an extra tax for the majority of their working life. Lol at saying 30 years isn't a lifetime and making a point of it.

I looked, and yes the trend shown in the article is in line with other reports, which is weird. But maybe not that weird given the lack of opportunity elsewhere. My view is that in the next period we will see a sharp drop in university applications from working class kids as apprenticeships expand. Either way it is plain wrong for education not to be free ie fully funded from general taxation.

The other point, so you admit that students in England are saddled with more debt than students in Scotland, having to borrow for both living costs and fees in England and only living costs in Scotland?

So you start by agreeing it's a graduate tax, then spend the rest of your post talking about debt....

Are student loans forgiven for those that don't graduate?

I can't help thinking that although it was unfair to low earners (correctable via income tax), the previous system of student grants was better overall, though that was before the rise in popularity of mickey mouse degrees in media studies etc.

It's a tax in the sense that it gets taken from payroll automatically and is proportional to wages. But to argue it isn't a debt is ridiculous. Re the point above if you fail your degree or drop out you still owe what you owe. Not sure what point you are trying to make with this.

Do you really think students who are failing or not going to get the classification they want should be able to drop out just before the end of their course and dodge their £30k tuition fees??

The point is that it's not a graduate tax if non graduates are liable for it. It's debt conditional on earnings.

Not necessarily as it depends on the income of the students. Poorer students in Scotland will end up with roughly the same amount of debt as poorer English students. Here's a quote (and a link) to a report from Lucy Hunter Blackburn. She's a freelance researcher who studies education funding

"With students from wealthier homes often still able to leave university with no or little debt, it has been easy to sustain a collective belief, not least among the better-off, that these arrangements are superior to ones elsewhere. Yet students from low-income backgrounds in Scotland now face levels of debt broadly in line with those for poorer students in the other devolved administrations, or in England between 2006 and 2011. Wales, with its high grants and relatively low fees, indeed offers the lowest debt for many low-income students, while also keeping debt levels for the better-off well below those in England.
Figures from other parts of the UK show that where fees are charged and grants are used more, not only is the expected debt lowest for those at lower incomes, but also that loan take-up is higher in practice across the student population as a whole and actual debt therefore more evenly spread. In Scotland uniquely the system is now structured so that, the more your family has to start with, the less you will owe after you graduate."


https://economicsofhe.org/2013/12/09...land/#more-199

Basically this confirms my inital point about who's gaining and who's losing out under the Scottish system.

Here's an article by Salmond's biographer on their tax policies

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-an...n-the-centre-r

Interestingly if you google 'snp left wing policies' the results don't actually bring up a list of any left wing policies but instead it's articles pointing out that they only talk left and their policies don't reflect that. Sturgeon herself was asked for a single wealth distribution policy in the parties manifesto in 2015 and couldn't name one.

To be fair that's a policy common among the left. Can you tell me what you think they should've done which falls within their devolved competence?

If they want to have a free higher education policy then implement it in a manner that doesn't penalise those from disadvantaged or poorer backgrounds by cutting over 150k college places and taking a huge chunk out of the bursaries that are available to them.

The NHS had been discussed by various ministers for several years, and Sir Henry Willink - a Conservative minister - and John Hawton eventually submitted a White Paper on the subject in 1944, much of which was criticised by Aneurin Bevan. However by the time it came to be implemented Labour were in power following the post-war election. The Conservatives supported the idea.

So while it was indeed Labour who introduced the NHS to the UK it was not just a socialist idea. I am a-political but so much garbage has been spouted about Labour "setting up" the NHS that I thought it reasonable to set the record straight.

New by-election on the horizon. This one will actually be a doozey as Labour only won it by 2,564 seats in 2015 and the constituency voted overwhelmingly to leave.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38390152

Oooh interesting to see if ukip or cons take it.

or split each others vote in a very comedic fashion?

It's interesting because if/when Labour lose it, it will be extremely hard for Corbyn slappies to argue he's capable of winning Lab/Con marginals. Similarly, if they manage to pull it off, they'll be especially insufferable.

I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of the kippers are ex Labour voters. Between 2010 and 2015 Ukip went from 994 votes to 6148. At the same time the Conservative vote went down by 1680 votes and Labour fell by 2949.

Labour losing the seat would be pretty disastrous.

Lol of course theyll lose. They're irrelevant

Be very interesting if Lib Dems have the only clear remain candidate. I want to see how solid the vote for 'remain' is and whether that's more important than party ties.

So, interestingly, this seat apparently will completely disappear in the boundary reforms - which could explain why Jamie Reed decided to call it a day. A small part of it will move into Tim Farron's constituency so the Lib Dems will probably throw a bit more at this than they usually would in a seat that they have no chance of winning.

There's talk of balls rebounding but probably not for this seat because even if he manages to win there's the boundary changes.