Post some evidence - any evidence at all that austerity works.
Explain why we have to make cuts in a slump because we didn't make them in a boom.
Then I can poke holes in it.

I guess there are two kind of people in this world - those who watch and quote academics, and those who are academics

At what point in your world should that debt to GDP line move downwards?

Also I noticed you included 2016 in the revised figures above. Interested in why you left it out initially, please explain.

Don't be mean, using youtube videos as evidence is a step up from fake daily mail headlines and misleading images of figures grabbed from twitter. Maybe we are getting somewhere.

Increased growth means increased debt and borrowing, nothing stymies the economy faster than the private sector and the government both attempting to pay down the debt at the same time as it can only impact aggregate demand negatively, it can only shrink the accounting identity of the money supply.

Which is why we have had totally anaemic growth 2010 to 2017 even though we have had totally ahistoric interest rates, interest rates that are set to HYPER BOOOOOOM NOOOOW!!! levels.

If you went back in time to just 10 years and tried to tell anyone our current interest rates and current growth levels, no one would believe you, because before now, if you had put interest rates to 0.5% you would have immediately created a massive surge in growth.

Decent look at tuition fees on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40511184

Nearly 6k in interest before you even leave. I see debts are being sold off, expect rates to rise.

Thanks for the link was very interesting.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...leted-quickly/

Ver big and very powerful trade deal to be signed imminently.

These deals include things like abiding by US rules and regs?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38639638 lol

--

Also a state visit all but confirmed. Huge big riots hopefully.

Seems to me like the only noticeable impact from fees on participation rates has been for part time courses.

The OU (200k+ 'undergrads' back then, all classified part-time iirc) had anomalous funding arrangements pre-2012 and a deadline of (mainly) 2017 to graduate under them. Financial help for the low-paid was freely available without repayment, laptop grants and extra help for disabled students etc likewise and monthly payments without credit checks for the rest of us. Very different to the £9k->£27k in loans B&M universities experienced, though they are lumped together in the graph (not to mention the ELQ hit from 08 or 09 which also had a big impact.)

Which is also a bad thing, at least for the 'too many numpties going to uni these days' brigade. Also the disadvantaged background numbers not declining argument is an irrelevant one.

Cash lent to borrowers who couldn't afford to pay it back --> global financial disaster. Massive hikes in fees doesn't seem a good idea.

Comment of the night on QT - woman says to Jacob weird in-bred billionaire freak rees-mogg - you have been banging on about UK debt pile for most of the show, now you are celebrating millions of youngsters being forced into huge debts before their lives get going.

I wonder what the quid pro quo is going to be. Support for bombing of North Korea?

^ that, and the NHS.

Disclaimer: LOL buzzfeed

That aside, this article actually lays out some tuition fee arguments quite well. I think it shows that free tuition isn't impossible, but the Scots have not gone about it in the best way.

The article references Lucy Hunter Blackburn who's pretty much at the forefront of carrying out analysis of education in Scotland. She's done some good work.

so basically don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Policy will be much more equitable when implemented by a genuinely progressive government with more control over the whole economy and ability to properly fund it.

The SNP have control of the economic leavers to fund this in other ways...if they were to chose to do so.

No, I'd say it means that certain measures would need to be enacted to even give it a shot at working. It doesn't sidestep the fact that it comes from other forms of taxation, some of which hit the poorest just the same (VAT for example). It also doesn't get around controlling the number of places available, and what you would do to make sure entrance isn't just a race to the best A level results, which, shock horror, tend to go to children from affluent families.

I'm sure there are some solutions to those questions, but I said the other day that if I had the £12bn needed for free tuition, I'd spent it on primary and secondary education (especially in deprived areas) without thinking twice. Nothing here has changed my mind on that front.

I do think the railways should be publicly owned. It doesn't in itself hurt the balance sheet because it's also an asset.

Whether money should be borrowed to pay for it depends on a lot of detail and other priorities. Waiting for the contracts to expire seems a decent plan but that needs to be handled well.

On priorities I'd rather the NHS PFI contracts were bought out.

A few days away and no case for austerity - Guess that clears that one up.

Meanwhile



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...02e9bdb0e2c77?

I was waiting for you to answer my questions. That would require an original thought though, rather than a crosspost from twitter or the like.

These things tend to come in packages, eg introduction of fees alongside city academies programme, or trebling of fees alongside massive school cuts.
I agree there are other major questions to address. I just can't envisage a society with a first class education system where individuals borrow £60k to fund the top end.
You basically answered it - entrance exams and limited places where demand meets need, this requires central planning which means less autonomy for colleges/ universities and an end to league tables etc etc.
Long way to go but this would be a start. I see they won't commit to debt write off, they should, it makes sense for that cash to get pumped round the economy.

Yep, this is really how these people speak. It's why they hate political correctness, means they can't express themselves in a manner abusive and demeaning to others.

Classy.