UK Politics IV: Disraeli Gears

[Ostroeuropa]

On feasibility:


This has been the case for many decades and in some cases, a few centuries. It is well within our means to ban cousin marriages.

As for the elderly, It would depend on how widespread the practice became, and what measures could be taken to limit the practice.

Whereas a ban on cousin marriage does not prevent the participants from marrying someone else, a ban on elderly marriage renders the person unable to marry entirely. It is a substantially more strict measure to be applied. As such it isn't equivalent.

Fair enough.
IIRC, the Chinese cousin marriage bans are based on surname. Quite difficult to do in the Muslim community, given that surname continuity isn't much of a thing.

I'm sure that there would still be some breaking of the law. The point is to reduce the prevalence of the practice. As it is, the number of stillbirths from the community likely also impacts mental health, which also has economic consequences. It's a policy with far-reaching effects.

Proper assimilation of immigrant communities requires this law, I see no alternative, unless you can provide one.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Fair enough.
IIRC, the Chinese cousin marriage bans are based on surname. Quite difficult to do in the Muslim community, given that surname continuity isn't much of a thing.

I'm sure that there would still be some breaking of the law. The point is to reduce the prevalence of the practice. As it is, the number of stillbirths from the community likely also impacts mental health, which also has economic consequences. It's a policy with far-reaching effects.

Proper assimilation of immigrant communities requires this law, I see no alternative, unless you can provide one.

Remove immigrant communities altogether? State control over all relationships and breeding? Forcible abortions?

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm sure that there would still be some breaking of the law. The point is to reduce the prevalence of the practice. As it is, the number of stillbirths from the community likely also impacts mental health, which also has economic consequences. It's a policy with far-reaching effects.

Proper assimilation of immigrant communities requires this law, I see no alternative, unless you can provide one.

Remove immigrant communities altogether? State control over all relationships and breeding? Forcible abortions?

You're right. I see no politically desirable or feasible alternative would have been better.

[Ariasteppe]

Hmmm. RE Ostro in general: I think I do agree with you, given the support is from secular, health-specialist sources, even if ideologically I revulse at the notion of the state saying who can or cannot get married (same way I supported the SSM Act even in spite of my dislike of the state being in marriage at all - since we have a state here and now, let's get practical).
But this goes further, and touches on a touchy topic on the left, namely, how to balance our opposition to imperialism in protecting people's rights to practice cultural diversity on one hand, along with our opposition to the totalitarian and theocratic, namely how to manage the fact that many of these cultural practices are in striking opposition to our Western human rights on the other hand (e.g., horrendous homophobic practices, or, if you're an animal rights advocate, gl & hf with halal practice). This is a debate I feel we must have on mutually respectable and self-mindful grounds. Like, less of this "You dislike the fracturous segregation going on and the damage it is doing to them, us, those in between, and society as a whole, and want a more active integrational approach? You racist!" or "You think part of the problem is the xenophobic attitude of the British underclass and that we just might be unhealthily encouraging demonisation of all Muslims as potential ISIS members? You ivory tower lunatics!". Maybe I'm wrong and one side is unequivocally in disrepute (in which case, come at me and deliver me from evil iguess), but I can't help but think free-minded discussion on the topic would be healthy and dampen the heat in this screaming contest.

[Wolfmanne2]

I think my mother ended up paying in the region of £400,000 for her university fees; this is a huge amount, and that is because she was training in a medical field. The high price of tuition, however, does not mean that it is the Government's responsibility to pay for it; this is a very dangerous attitude to have, as it breeds the idea of your life being in the hands of the state, which is not only immoral, but idle.

The Tories were successful in the 80s because their philosophy was of you worked hard and got on you deserved to keep your fruits of your labour. It's how my Dad went from being a working class lad from North London to working for major international investment banks. Did those maintenance grants make him dependent on the state?

He doesn't vote Tory anymore, but Liberal, because the Tory attitude has basically turned into what Lamadia said.

So should the British government charge for the use of roads, the emergency services, the police, the courts? After-all - demanding the government cover costs without having to pay the money back is idleness.

Making the comparison between higher education & the emergency services makes you seem unintelligent, which you certainly are not. The fundamental duty of a government is to protect its citizens; that is it. This can span off into the police, fire brigade & at a definite push, healthcare. It is also the duty of the government to provide law & order, which comes under the courts. These things are paid for through taxes; the fact that loans are given out to students is absolutely fine in my book, but people expecting to not have to pay this sum back is ignorant & entitled, as it is not the fundamental duty of the state to pay for your education, certainly higher education.
It branches off as so; protecting the people (police & army), maintaining law & order (police, army & courts), providing basic services (roads, rail, electricity, water, gas.) The first two are fundamental, the latter at a big push. Education does not come into this, and furthermore higher education as a non-nationalised entity does not come under the jurisdiction of the state.

Perhaps so. Even then the current tuition fees model is unfair. It's not fair that my Dad will have earned more than me or my sister combined. Shouldn't every generation be getting wealthier? That's the sign of a prosperous society. Our system should either be integrated with our National Insurance system with the establishment of National Insurance Education Accounts or we should convert to a full on graduate tax. If the government want to make it more expensive like they're doing now, they should have the balls to say they're raising taxes, their theoretical ability to sell off debt to private companies should be removed, grants should be restored and those on higher incomes should pay more into the system - after all they reaped the most benefits from University.

[Lamadia III]

I think my mother ended up paying in the region of £400,000 for her university fees; this is a huge amount, and that is because she was training in a medical field. The high price of tuition, however, does not mean that it is the Government's responsibility to pay for it; this is a very dangerous attitude to have, as it breeds the idea of your life being in the hands of the state, which is not only immoral, but idle.

The Tories were successful in the 80s because their philosophy was of you worked hard and got on you deserved to keep your fruits of your labour. It's how my Dad went from being a working class lad from North London to working for major international investment banks. Did those maintenance grants make him dependent on the state?

He doesn't vote Tory anymore, but Liberal, because the Tory attitude has basically turned into what Lamadia said.

Making the comparison between higher education & the emergency services makes you seem unintelligent, which you certainly are not. The fundamental duty of a government is to protect its citizens; that is it. This can span off into the police, fire brigade & at a definite push, healthcare. It is also the duty of the government to provide law & order, which comes under the courts. These things are paid for through taxes; the fact that loans are given out to students is absolutely fine in my book, but people expecting to not have to pay this sum back is ignorant & entitled, as it is not the fundamental duty of the state to pay for your education, certainly higher education.
It branches off as so; protecting the people (police & army), maintaining law & order (police, army & courts), providing basic services (roads, rail, electricity, water, gas.) The first two are fundamental, the latter at a big push. Education does not come into this, and furthermore higher education as a non-nationalised entity does not come under the jurisdiction of the state.

Perhaps so. Even then the current tuition fees model is unfair. It's not fair that my Dad will have earned more than me or my sister combined. Shouldn't every generation be getting wealthier? That's the sign of a prosperous society. Our system should either be integrated with our National Insurance system with the establishment of National Insurance Education Accounts or we should convert to a full on graduate tax. If the government want to make it more expensive like they're doing now, they should have the balls to say they're raising taxes, their theoretical ability to sell off debt to private companies should be removed, grants should be restored and those on higher incomes should pay more into the system - after all they reaped the most benefits from University.

1) I am not against the Government giving out student loans & startup grants to small businesses and so on; we need these to put people into higher education, to foster social mobility & a more prosperous economy. However, the belief that you are better than the wealthy, that you have some unspoken elite right to have the Government wipe your arse & hand you everything on a plate, is lazy. It is lazy, quite simply, that you think that you should be allowed to take out a loan and not pay it back, and 'oh, let the rich pay for it, they have everything anyway *flicks hair* I shouldn't have to!'.
Humiliating.

[Souseiseki]

The Tories were successful in the 80s because their philosophy was of you worked hard and got on you deserved to keep your fruits of your labour. It's how my Dad went from being a working class lad from North London to working for major international investment banks. Did those maintenance grants make him dependent on the state?

He doesn't vote Tory anymore, but Liberal, because the Tory attitude has basically turned into what Lamadia said.


Perhaps so. Even then the current tuition fees model is unfair. It's not fair that my Dad will have earned more than me or my sister combined. Shouldn't every generation be getting wealthier? That's the sign of a prosperous society. Our system should either be integrated with our National Insurance system with the establishment of National Insurance Education Accounts or we should convert to a full on graduate tax. If the government want to make it more expensive like they're doing now, they should have the balls to say they're raising taxes, their theoretical ability to sell off debt to private companies should be removed, grants should be restored and those on higher incomes should pay more into the system - after all they reaped the most benefits from University.

1) I am not against the Government giving out student loans & startup grants to small businesses and so on; we need these to put people into higher education, to foster social mobility & a more prosperous economy. However, the belief that you are better than the wealthy, that you have some unspoken elite right to have the Government wipe your arse & hand you everything on a plate, is lazy. It is lazy, quite simply, that you think that you should be allowed to take out a loan and not pay it back, and 'oh, let the rich pay for it, they have everything anyway *flicks hair* I shouldn't have to!'.
Humiliating.

let's try to and do this from scratch

there are some things we really really need for society, like doctors. an educated and informed populace is also vital for an informed democracy and keeping our entirely service based economy alive.

having people live possibly literally their entire lives with massive debts because of this is bad, it actively hinders our goal by discouraging people that cannot afford (the vast majority of the population) from getting in and harms those that do.

the rich have a much larger ability to contribute to society, from which their success is mostly derived. please do not even insult me by even trying to spin some silly myth of the self-made man who was not enabled by the society surrounding them.

therefore it seems that, even from a cold logical perspective, that preventing students from being saddled with debt purely as an accident of their birth is... bad?

e: tho lol @ "the rich should pay for it". no. everyone pays for it. you have noticed the disparity though, that some families can easily afford $400,000 out of hand yet for most people that may as well be 20 years worth of work assuming they contribute literally every single penny to a college fund, no bills or rent and so on. you might want to think carefully about this and what it means in terms of a healthy society!

[Souseiseki]

we are better than the wealthy, who, for the record, never get any government handouts or help, ever

[Questers]

samoz: pint when m8?

[Vassenor]

So apparently dropping 400K on something is no big deal? For most of us here that's more money than we'll earn in a decade.

[Imperializt Russia]

I think my mother ended up paying in the region of £400,000 for her university fees; this is a huge amount, and that is because she was training in a medical field. The high price of tuition, however, does not mean that it is the Government's responsibility to pay for it; this is a very dangerous attitude to have, as it breeds the idea of your life being in the hands of the state, which is not only immoral, but idle.

I'm sorry, I was just agreeing with Gideon that it was a tax on learning

Because wanting an education is idleness?

Not at all; demanding the government cover this cost without you having to pay the money back is, however.

That's how it worked for like twenty, thirty years.

And also, no-one is asking to receive an education worth £400,000 for free, let alone everyone.

Education is a commodity; very often, the more you invest into it, the better the result is overall, whether that be a top private school, a good university, good degrees. The more people who have this commodity ie. a degree, the less attractive you are to a potential employer; my mum among many qualifications has a PhD in neuroscience. This gives her an edge over many others in the field, for instance; if everybody had this qualification, and the others she had, the less attractive she would seem in terms of standing out. Thus, making degrees too accessible to people is counter-productive.
As it is, we have far too many people entering universities; we have a jobs market full of verity & full of interesting careers, and very often for many jobs an apprenticeship is far superior to any degree. We need to be encouraging children to look at all options, and not just aiming immediately for degrees. Evidently, concentrate the more intelligent students on the latter, whilst working to help people aspire to both this & other options.

Even today, very few people hold doctorates.
Because they're fucking doctorates.

A highly educated workforce is an investment.

Why is it £35k? Why not £34k?

Kicking people out based on arbitrary numbers makes no sense.

It was always going to be arbitrary. The point is now that we've picked a number we can raise it or lower it according to what we want and the way it effects the country, thus no longer making it arbitrary.

I'd prefer a more overt culture-based system, but that's not going to be pushed in the current climate. 35k is fairly substantial. It will effectively mean mass migration from outside the EU ends.

Goodbye, non-UK nurses

[Imperializt Russia]

samoz: pint when m8?

I saw you're coming back tomorrow.
Where you at?

[Souseiseki]

Goodbye, non-UK nurses

don't worry you will have plenty of nurses from [your absolute fucking shambles of a nurse program holy shit]

[Vassenor]

Goodbye, non-UK nurses

People forget that the NHS is basically being propped up by migrant workers.

[Imperializt Russia]

Goodbye, non-UK nurses

People forget that the NHS is basically being propped up by migrant workers.

Was it a quarter or a third of nurses?

[Vassenor]

People forget that the NHS is basically being propped up by migrant workers.

Was it a quarter or a third of nurses?

And a good chunk of GPs and other doctors too.

[Frank Zipper]

The government spending money to enable a more educated workforce benefits the whole country. I am not sure the same can be said of the government spending money to try and promote home ownership. Stopping homelessness yes, but not just trying to increase home ownership compared to renting.

[Questers]

samoz: pint when m8?

I saw you're coming back tomorrow.
Where you at?

I'm at a hotel in Singapore.

Will be in London for a few days -- arriving tomorrow -- but in the long term, the capital of god's own county. If you come down for a pint I've a hell of a story about my rapid departure.

[Souseiseki]

The government spending money to enable a more educated workforce benefits the whole country. I am not sure the same can be said of the government spending money to try and promote home ownership. Stopping homelessness yes, but not just trying to increase home ownership compared to renting.

the current tories love winston churchill, so they took his writings on the parasitic nature of the landlordism in this country and are moving towards getting people into their own homes as much as they can. after all, is it not ridiculous that a person should be forced to hand over a good quarter at least of their daily bread to someone else for the privilege of shelter solely because economic conditions created by the very person they are paying money to has made it impossible to by their own home? the wealthy extract wealth from and become even more wealthy on the backs of the least wealthy purely by virtue of already being wealthy. what an absurd system!

oh god i could hardly finishing typing that

but seriously churchill was right about land monopoly :^)

[Imperializt Russia]

I saw you're coming back tomorrow.
Where you at?

I'm at a hotel in Singapore.

Will be in London for a few days -- arriving tomorrow -- but in the long term, the capital of god's own county. If you come down for a pint I've a hell of a story about my rapid departure.

I'm currently very poor in not-quite Lancashire at the moment :/

[Lamadia III]

Bit-off topic (sorry for asking,) but what is it that you all do in terms of career? I haven't ever asked?

[Imperializt Russia]

Bit-off topic (sorry for asking,) but what is it that you all do in terms of career? I haven't ever asked?

I think you have, but periodically asking is hardly a bad thing.

I'm a graduate, and also a master's student.

[Vassenor]

Bit-off topic (sorry for asking,) but what is it that you all do in terms of career? I haven't ever asked?

Undergraduate student.

[Philjia]

Bit-off topic (sorry for asking,) but what is it that you all do in terms of career? I haven't ever asked?

I'm waiting to find out whether I'm studying environmental science at university, or resitting all my exams.

[Salandriagado]

I suspect she read "How to get your daughter to believe nonsense figures."

I beg your pardon?

Tuition fees weren't introduced until 1998, so that's a few years without paying any fees. From 1998 to 2006, the cap was at £1,000/year (maximum total: £8,000). From then until 2012, the cap was at £3000/year (maximum total to 2012: £29,000). Since then, the cap has been at £9,000/year (maximum total to date: £71,000). And that's assuming she was paying fees throughout: next to nobody pays doctorate-level fees, so that's frankly unlikely.

Where the hell did your mother study?

Oxford & Harvard were her main two universities, although the toured most of the top 10 during her studies training as a neurosurgeon.

Amending this in: Harvard Medical school's maximum tuition is $58,000. That was lower previously, but assuming she was there for four years at that rate (this is almost certainly an overestimate, because as I say: nobody pays PhD tuition fees), that's only £175,000, bringing the total to a maximum of around £220,000.