[Closed] Should Theresa May resign?

Very good thm.

It’s a pleasure

Now please think back to your post at the end of the last page and explain where one interview with nme gets confused with policy/manifesto and who confused it

Yes re-read it, and.....

Are you confusing the conditional and past tenses?

Or what young people [b]would [/b]feel like [b]if [/b]they voted for a party who pretended that....

teamhurtmore - Member

You are the expert here NW, you tell me..

I did. And then I corrected you when you got it the wrong way round. You're welcome.

Not sure why you edited your interesting response, but

If the increased cost of tuition really were to be paid by the student, that would be defensible. Not necessarily the best way- but at least it'd make some sense, it'd be a coherent argument

Which was my point, but accept that....

But the current regime is increasing the cost to the taxpayer for no benefit- the student body is not paying the increased cost, they're just holding onto it for a while then giving it back to their kids.

Could be the case under the assumption of a mass write off, true

Unless of course you count cooking the books and letting the government pretend they've cut the national debt when all they've done is defer a chunk of it, as a benefit.

Not a benefit at all. You will be aware of m views on the state [s]ponzi[/s] pension scheme. Another con...

Just watching Theresa May interviewed by Marr this morning. Just absolutely bloody awful! She's ****ing clueless! It's staggering that someone as utterly inept and totally unsuited for the job has ended up as prime minister. She seems utterly and completely detached from reality

I wouldn't let her run a bath, never mind the country

What's staggering is that all the present alternatives are even worse

She's also doing that Gordon Brown thing where her media trainers have told her to smile, but when she does that awful rictus grin it just looks like a serial killer who's just buried a body in a shallow grave on the moors

...and our country is the body!

teamhurtmore - Member

Which was my point

And it's wrong. That's my point. It's just an illusion.

I'm not talking about a "mass write off", I'm talking about the system working as designed. No big event, just the slow, expected life-expiration of the proportion of loans that were never expected to be repaid, year on year

(history suggests that every so often a tranche of good debts will be sold off for less than they're worth to private investors but that's another matter)

So it's exactly the opposite of your point- this change reduces the amount of the cost that's repaid by students, while increasing the cost paid by the taxpayer. Nobody wins. Except the Tory party, because they can pretend they're improving the lot of students while preserving almost everything that's wrong with the system they introduced.

The old system (ie the one replaced in 2010) wasn't perfect either but it was a lower lending, higher repayment model which put more responsibility on the student. This latest evolution of the current one switches it from dubious, to undeniably fiscally stupid.

Please help me out here. IME the cost of the taxpayers is determined by two things: the level of defaults and the extent of the rate subsidy. This is the basis of the IFS analysis

So what happens today with the silly announcement affects neither if I understand it correctly. It affect the timing of the payments hence the NPV will change but only dependent on other factors. Can you explain where you get your defintitve conclusion from or which bit I am missing. Thx

Context - ifs views on labours proposal to scrap fees

Table 1 summarises our modelling of the impact of the reforms. Replacing fees with teaching grants would increase the up-front government contribution to HE by £1 billion compared to the current system. This is driven by the additional spending on the fees of students who do not take out student loans and paid some or all of their fees up front. Otherwise, the up-front cash outlay – and hence contribution to government debt – is unchanged.
The big difference, however, is in the impact on the measure of the deficit that we typically focus on. This is entirely because of the way these things are accounted for by the government; teaching grants count towards the deficit in the short run, while tuition fee loans do not. Consequently, scrapping fees adds around £11 billion to the deficit. This is £10 billion for current borrowers and an extra £1 billion for the current self-financers.
The long-run impact on government finances is smaller than this, because some – though not all – of the tuition fee loans would have been repaid. We estimate that the present value (to government) of long-run student repayments is £6.5 billion. This reflects the real long-run cost of removing tuition fees and is therefore a better estimate of the true cost of the policy to the government. This is still a substantial amount.

teamhurtmore - Member

So what happens today with the silly announcement affects neither if I understand it correctly.

They've increased the repayment threshold from £21000 to £25000, so an increase in the level of nonrepayment (and the mean time to repayment for those loans that are repaid) is unavoidable.

Incidentally, this is semantic but default is a pretty weighted term so it's probably worth noting that these aren't defaults. The loans have a built-in expiry date so when the loans are legitimately written off at the end of life the borrower has fulfilled the loan agreement in full.

The IFS report is really valuable, and ironically forecasts the true cost of write-offs as being less than Labour think, never mind the Tories. But it only looks at full write-offs, it's not a cost/benefit analysis of the 2012 change which is what I've been talking about.

Not that I'm arguing for the pre-2012 status quo either, it had most of the same basic flaws, just smaller numbers- basically as bad in theory but less impactful in practice. A bad Labour idea multiplied by the Tories.

I’m being thick here

How does increasing the threshold make higher levels on non repayment unavoidable?

I can see that it affects timing of the cash flows

This have to be voted through though, Would Labour back it? Would Mays own party back it?

Considering that May's entire manifesto of just a few months ago has evaporated, what chance has she got off getting any peripheral legislation through?

[quote=teamhurtmore ]I’m being thick here
How does increasing the threshold make higher levels on non repayment unavoidable?
I can see that it affects timing of the cash flows

Yes, that's unusual for you. Do you really need it spelling out?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "timing of the cash flows", but clearly with a higher repayment threshold, everything else being equal (and I understand it will be regarding repayment rates) people will pay less back every year. After 30 years the loan is written off however much is left to pay.

I'll let you fill in the blanks, but just a recap to help:
- people will pay less back every year
- the loan is written off after 30 years
- more people will fail to pay off their loans

teamhurtmore - Member

How does increasing the threshold make higher levels on non repayment unavoidable?

Just the obvious ways, no hidden considerations- it'll increase the number of low-paid graduates who never repay a single penny because they never earn enough. And it'll increase the number who repay a portion but not all, and increase the mean amount that this group doesn't repay.

The average debt is estimated at just under £48k, and with a starting salary at £25k, is forecast to take 29 years and 4 months to pay off. So it doesn't take much of a change to push this to 30 years and turn the average graduate into a non-repayer.

And remember we were already pretty much on the knife edge of gain/cost on the whole £9000 fee structure so it doesn't take much at all to tip it. The last published write-off forecast from 2015 was 45% and rising about 1% year on year, and 48.6% is the break-even compared to the 2010, £3000 structure.

(if it hasn't already tipped; as I mentioned repayments were on a downward trend right up til the government stopped publishing the forecasts, and cynical me can't imagine they decided to stop publishing [i]good[/i] forecasts in 2015)

[quote=binners ]Just watching Theresa May interviewed by Marr this morning. Just absolutely bloody awful! She's ****ing clueless! It's staggering that someone as utterly inept and totally unsuited for the job has ended up as prime minister. She seems utterly and completely detached from reality
I wouldn't let her run a bath, never mind the country

So the Marr interview completely changed your opinion of her then? 😈

yment threshold, everything else being equal (and I understand it will be regarding repayment rates) people will pay less back every year.

Ok that was the bit I was missing - I assumed rates would change

Thanks

Still we no evidence on non- repayments if that is the same as defaults. If it’s only because of more people under thrsehold then I get it.

I was equating non-repayment with default

Thx for clarification

[quote=Northwind ]The average debt is estimated at just under £48k, and with a starting salary at £25k, is forecast to take 29 years and 4 months to pay off.

Is this assuming annual pay increases well above the current real world level (even for graduates) as it was on the model when I last looked at a loan calculator?

The average debt is estimated at just under £48k, and with a starting salary at £25k, is forecast to take 29 years and 4 months to pay off.

This latest evolution of the current one switches it from dubious, to undeniably fiscally stupid.

Like I said, it's a hefty graduate tax in all but name. Sure, some people will pay it off, but most won't.

The big cost is who it puts off going to uni in the first place. Had a discussion about this amongst my UK science colleagues (all now postdoc or full faculty), and out of about 10 of us, none would have gone to uni in the first place with fees as they are, and about half of us wouldn't have gone when they were £3k pa.

Sure, not exactly representative of the population as a whole, but nonetheless rather telling if a bunch of people who went on to postgrad and beyond simply wouldn't have entered tertiary education in the first place.

Oh, and someone mentioned that fees are ok as it's a user pays model. Not so much. Graduate workers generally benefit the economy far more than non-graduate workers:

The big cost is who it puts off going to uni in the first place. Had a discussion about this amongst my UK science colleagues (all now postdoc or full faculty), and out of about 10 of us, none would have gone to uni in the first place with fees as they are, and about half of us wouldn't have gone when they were £3k pa.

Absolutely agree and worry wtf I want for my kids,

Anyone watching the Borris Johnson special on channel 4?

Amusing but we know how it ends, of to bed

Edit, how much has Maybot aged in a year! compared to how she looked on Marr earlier!

A bad Labour idea multiplied by the Tories.

Great posts by the way Northwind. Informative.

You lot need to be nicer to Theresa she is all that stands between us and the swivel eyed loons and Boris the moon unit Johnson

Note - full credit to Binners for the re introduction of the term "moon unit"

telling if a bunch of people who went on to postgrad and beyond simply wouldn't have entered tertiary education in the first place

Also it seems to be sqewing course choices amongst the less well off towards vocational rather than academic. Medic courses have always been relatively better attended at Oxbridge than say biology amongst state school kids and this patten is worsening from my purely annecdotal evidence.

and this patten is worsening from my purely annecdotal evidence.

I can well believe it. I just would never have aspired to go to uni if I thought I'd be facing the fees today's students do

Uni is cheap here compared to the US (more per year and 4 years not 3) all good ones still oversubscribed. There should be more means tested grants for lower income families to the point of tuition being zero and living allowance. For middle classes they should still pay.

17 minutes of quality viewing 8)

Uni is cheap here compared to the US

Yes but ruddy expensive compared to Finland.

jambalaya - Member
Uni is cheap here compared to the US (more per year and 4 years not 3) all good ones still oversubscribed. There should be more means tested grants for lower income families to the point of tuition being zero and living allowance. For middle classes they should still pay.

Anyway you forgot to tell us who you think the worst tory PM was

jambalaya - Member
Uni is cheap here compared to the US

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35745324

#youknowwhat

#youknowwhat

🙂

Don't, people will whinge about him being bullied again when you confront him with facts.

What makes the US system so good?

The US system is shocking for a number of reasons. The loans are commercial bank loans at comemrcial interest rates and on commercial repayment terms. There's no sliding repayment and the payments don't cease when your income drops. They come after you.

The other major issue is that good unis cost far more than lesser ones. So bright people from poorer backgrounds are put off going to top unis because they are afraid of the cost. So for two people of the same ability, the richer one gets a better education.

That's disgusting. We should not aspire to be like the US.

Not just what DrJ posted, but there are lots of bursaries and scholarships available to students in the USA. Not surprising that an increasing proportion of the UK's brightest and best are heading over there.

Not surprising that an increasing proportion of the UK's brightest and best are heading over there.

And richest. Dont' forget richest.

Should nursing cost nearly 30k to get into?

No, and it also shouldn't require a degree (which is another topic where training is provided/paid for by the employer)

the germans and the french can do tuition for < $1000/year too. i suppose the UK's education is 9x betterer...

Phillip Hammond is presently making his leadership bid. It's stirring inspiring stuff!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35745324

Also that article is dated March 2016; I wonder if anything has happened since then that might have a negative effect on the exchange rate?

So Hammond forces the BoJo resignation/sacking then mops up? Or is he too sensible to want the job?

Just had a Tory mp claiming they brought in the minimum wage on R4 (so they are the workers party), the interviewer didn't say a thing. 😕

#youknowwhat

DrJ come on, really ?

From your link

Oxford $40,000 Harvard $240,000 - that’s two HUNDRED and fourty thousand

University of California at Los Angeles and where ... University of Central Lancashire, hardly comparable. My super smart and talented neice from California just started at UCLA a top school for studying Politics. Versus where ? In other random news she helped out a lost looking freshman and got photograpghed by the paparazi as the other student turned out to be Ariel Winter. UCLA and UCL 🙂

@zokes you clearly didn’t read the link

@Del the French have much higher taxes, 50% starts below our 40% plus they have VAT of 5% on food, no zero rated on childrens clothes and full rate on water, gas and electric bills. Stamp duty is 6-8% too, none of tehse lower rated uk bands. That pays for a lot of stuff. Your choice if you want the same. British plublic have voted otherwise.

@DrJ the BBC piece must have used in-state tuition fees, out of state students pay $40,000 pa so a total of $160,000 for the dgeree

Andrea leadsome backing Borris at the Tory conference,

Dominic Grieve just destroyed her ( land the other Brexit fantasists) on a Brexit panel (not hard she's hardly the smartest, obvs)
He's pointing out what no other Tory wants to admit, that Brexit is pushing voters into Corbyns camp.

May apparently not going to Johnson speech tomorrow

Rats in a sack!

French unis can be very cheap but it depends on family income .

Colleges and higher education schools can be more expensive , especially with accommodation etc...

University of California at Los Angeles and where ... University of Central Lancashire, hardly comparable. My super smart and talented neice from California just started at UCLA a top school for studying Politics. Versus where ?

Erm..... isn't that the point? It costs virtually the same under the British system to do a degree at UCLAN as it does to do one at UCLA, "one of the top 20 Uni's in the world"

And as for the 'out of state' vs 'in state' - far more common to stay in state where the states are much bigger and have far more choice within. So the 'out of state' choice is specifically for those that can afford to and I agree they get humped for it (ex Uni friend going through it with her kids)

Aside from the big cities, where can the UK offer the choice?

Your choice if you want the same. British plublic have voted otherwise.