Woodstock Jag

Well that's exactly the point: I'm not a "Tory ****wit" Thanks for agreeing.

Those who want to provide welfare for the needy can do so. They can set up insurance schemes (like the one in Germany, which is absolutely top notch) which provides cover for those who are out of work based on historic contributions. Believe it or not, the fact that private healthcare doesn't work in the USA (because of how it's structured) doesn't mean it can't work and doesn't work elsewhere. The sooner people realise that you can have all of these things without a state or taxation, but simply through the innate capacity in individuals to express philanthropy, the better. You wouldn't have police except where a neighbourhood desired that there should be a kind of law enforcement, which they would fund themselves. I'm astonished that you don't have enough faith in humanity to look after itself. Yep.

I for one would abolish all taxes as soon as was practical, by a sustained and unrelenting reduction in public spending and elimination of the public debt.

Well that's full of a whole host of non sequitur and ad hominem such as it can't even begin to be digested. I would scrap Trident and much of our military spending in a minute. It doesn't mean the general taxpayer should pay for the degrees of the children of millionaires. I know this isn't a convenient truth for left wingers, but it is actually possible to be economically right wing and not be a military-spending-obsessed, anti-gay, racist, authoritarian nutter. It is (LLB with Joint Honours in Politics all going well), but let's not have facts get in the way.

The problem here is that you're setting up a straw man. I do not deny that we are social creatures. I merely disagree as to what makes us social creatures. We are social because it satisfies the human mind. It satisfies an individual hunger for interaction. You also misrepresent transaction. It does not necessitate reciprocity: indeed transaction is merely the transfer of anything from one person to another. That could be of information, of a gesture, of property, of compassion, of anything. Transaction is the base of social interaction. Altruism necessarily grows out of a desire to help others. That's what it is. Forcibly depriving an individual of their property to use it for the benefit of another is not altruism. Indeed it is contrary to altruism. If there is any cynicism it is in the erroneous belief that such twisting of coercion and will is valid. That means you obviously don't understand what "Toryism" is. Conservatism is about preservation of power structures. Power structures are the political, the legal and the nepotist. They are the arbitrary, the coercive and the illiberal. I hold that property is not itself a power structure. Indeed it is nation states that falsely affiliate property to power, and the forge-masters of artificial notions of class. Property is not itself the means of production. Indeed it is the object and subject of production. The means is labour, and man owns his own labour completely, and grants it by license for value through express consent to those with the subjects of production to bring about an object. Again, you equate exclusively socialist outlook with social interaction. This is an incredible straw man. Society is a product of mutual, not common, interests, and the greater the mutuality, the more productive the outcome. Mutuality cannot be coerced, however, and any attempts to coerce it will be counter-productive.

I voted Lib Dem partly tactically but also because they are the least authoritarian of the main parties. Their leadership were also on record since 2004 with the Orange Book as keen to reduce the role of the state in the lives of individuals, arguing for marketisation and localised solutions to problems. Self rule is the purest of all rule and the only irrefutably legitimate one. I believe that humans are inherently self-interested but good: capable of reason and its application. It is this illusion of power and the arbitrary and quite deliberate creation of utterly meaningless classes that attack individual capacity for good. How many times do I have to say this: I am not "defending" the super-rich. I defend no one but myself and those I value. I am challenging this assumed notion that property is a relative concept; it is not. It is absolute, and can only be tempered by the express consent of the proprietor. Fairness is not about equality. It is about the liberty of man to choose or to reject equality, and to define the terms upon which he believes equality to have been established. And I don't. I think they are completely arbitrary distinctions that are used to engineer conflict and to destroy innate individualism. We do not, and have never, lived in anything remotely resembling a truly free market society. The free market derides monopoly of all kinds, and is all about the dissemination and separation of political and economic power. Marx is fundamentally disingenuous to suggest that their correlation implies causation. As above, we don't have a capitalist system. A capitalist system does not have sectional interest. The capitalist system sees coalescing interests as incidental to and not a necessary consequence of inequality. That is where Marx is wrong: it is only by the spread of lies and the desire to usurp the elites by the internal elites of the so-called proletariat that the masses are duped into violence. The reality is that class distinctions are arbitrary, dangerous and ought to be meaningless. They are simply similar people. They are only a community to the extent that their immediate interests are mutual (not common). My solution is to have no government or at least have it so small that it doesn't matter who is running it, from where, or on behalf of whom. Absolute individual responsibility. You betray very authoritarian instincts. Liberty is absolute. It is the right to do as one pleases without expressly invading the liberty of another. There is no inherent responsibility on the "super-rich" to do anything for the poor, except that which they impose upon themselves. To suggest otherwise is to allow tyranny of the majority, which is fundamentally wrong and anti-liberty. "Make them show a bit of altruism" - that's contradictory. Altruism is by definition the interest in the welfare of others. Taxing people (i.e. stealing their money) does not change the way they THINK. Forced altruism is not altruism. Mind you don't go on strike

My interpretation is that it is a shortfall that needs plugged.

I am a democratic sceptic. I find so much of democracy to be contrary to liberty. I think it is arbitrary, unfair, and allows tyranny of the majority. I am first and foremost an autarchist. I believe in absolute self-rule and ownership. I believe that freedom is innate to existence and that no matter how it is dressed up, the imposition of any will upon the individual, which itself has a will, is both coercive and morally bankrupt. I also believe that equality is contrary to liberty especially when brought about by nefarious and illegitimate states, which all nation states are. Government should only exist to the extent that it can overcome the inconveniences of the liberty enjoyed by mere existence. It should not really have a role in redistribution. It should not really have a role in welfare and it should not really have a role in anything except that which protects the negative freedoms of man and his property. I also do not believe that violence is rational or moral. It is contrary to virtue and is to be rejected as coercive and contrary to liberty of person. Protests against political elites are perfectly valid, but anarchists violently protesting for higher taxes to fund a bigger state are not anarchists. I do not choose to "protect" anyone. I would not have bailed out the banks. I believe in absolute individual responsibility and that the presence of government dilutes this so that people start to expect other people to do things for them. That is wrong. The rich already give a lot to society, which is the point. No one has entitlement to another man's wealth. At all. It is not for other people to tell a man what his wealth must be used for. If he considers it virtuous to help others, he will do so. If he does not, that is his prerogative, and since he exists to maximise the enjoyment of his liberty he should do everything in his power to prevent others from destroying it by creating this thing called a "state" and sanctioning theft to give to others. In short there is no common good or people. There are individuals. Their interests occasionally coalesce. Their wills may be mutual but they are not common. I deride any rule. Because there is no such thing as the will of the people, but the aggregate will of individuals. And because I reject the legitimacy of the aggregate will, I reject the nation state, and anything that it does unless it is the product of a unanimous desire of those whose liberty it invades. Again, I am not a Tory. Why do people always assume this? I voted Lib Dem in the last election, but in truth none of the political parties even come close to representing my views. They are all statist, tax and spend, authoritarian and anti-liberty; just some less than others (Labour are the worst). As before, democracy is neither a means nor an ends for me. It is just blatantly contrary to liberty. The government does not exist for the people. It exists for individuals and to protect the freedoms that exist because they exist and are individuals. That is why I reject the rubbish that Marx spouts every bit as much as the authoritarian capitalist spouts. Classes are arbitrary divisions that people invent to try to destroy individuality and clump individuals into groups. It is a form of profiling. It creates and justifies power structures. A true libertarian, autarchist, or market anarchist rejects all of these. All power is contrary to liberty.

There continue to be maintenance grants for the poorest of students. In fact, they're actually more generous down south than they are up here.

I would argue that Mission part 1 should not be framed that way. It is "to satisfy an individual's desire for knowledge and wider understanding of the world around them. This is of incidental benefit to society where the best brains coalesce to produce innovation" To be honest I think you've hit the crux of the problem. We wouldn't have to ask "who pays for it" if we didn't offer so much crap and the quality of education wasn't declining so substantially and have this obsession with sending everyone to University. It would be a drop in the ocean for Government resources to educate the top 10-20% of school-leavers and to provide a progressive means of access for those least well off. As soon as you try to funnel 50% of school-leavers into Uni when the declining quality of schooling means the quality of intake is poorer anyway just dilutes the value of a University education and drives up the cost exponentially. Which is effectively how the tuition fees reform is structured! I can't believe people don't understand this! Look at the detail!

It's their money. It's not your money. It's not my money. It's not the government's money. They are under no obligation, nor should they be, to pay the debts of other people. Just because more of the wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the richest does not mean that the poor are getting poorer. That's just lazy and factually incorrect. There is nothing wrong with the rich getting richer faster than the poorer. Indeed our tax system already places the vast majority of the tax burden on the rich. The top 1% of earners contribute 23% of income tax revenues. Extend that further, the top 5% contribute 42%. The top 10% contribute 53%. The bottom HALF of earners contribute... 11.5%. Yep. That's right. The top 1% of earners contribute twice as much as the bottom 50% to the Treasury coffers. The top 5% contribute almost 4 times as much and the top 10% contribute near a staggering 5 times as much of the income tax burden. To paraphrase Peter Mandelson: the rich have suffered enough! That's just a lazy explanation of the late 70s and 80s. Tory government was not "dedicated to beating down the working class"; they were dedicated to rolling back the state and getting individuals to take responsibility for their own lives instead of punishing people for being successful with 83% supertaxes. And yet again we see this lazy use of the term "neo-con" when actually it's neo-liberalism you're seeing in action. Neoconservatism is what you saw with George Bush: tax cuts for the rich, outrageous military spending, and backward social values. Bringing the lowest paid out of income tax, cutting government spending and influence (including military) and letting people run their own lives instead of having bureaucrats do it for them is neoliberalism. And it's the fairest politics of all. But why should they and why SHOULD we all benefit? How do you define "benefit"? If you increase taxes on the rich, they move or they avoid tax by legitimate means. When Britain had an 83% top rate of tax, the top 1% of earners paid 11% of income tax revenue, top 5% paid 25% and the top 10% paid 35% and the bottom 50% paid 20%. Compare and contrast with the figures I gave you above before the 50% rate came in. "Progressive" taxation yields regressive results. The reality is that they DO pay their way. Higher taxes yield lower tax revenue. Opening that can of worms is completely counter-productive. Why won't they be able to fulfil their potential? As even the loony left IFS say, the bottom 23% of graduate earners will pay LESS under the Coalition Government's tuition fees reform than the current system. It is more progressive than the Labour sanctioned Browne Review AND the current system, and graduate contributions are linked ABSOLUTELY in line with the graduate's ability to pay. It is NOT a debt for anything other than paper purposes. It is a graduate tax with a contributions limit. The rise in fees is meaningless to the student unless they become filthy rich and are in a position to pay their contribution in its entirety. The 30 year moratorium means that ACTUALLY the government will continue to underwrite substantial swathes of the cost of people's degrees. Wrong. The argument comes down to "what is the role of government" and "what is the role of University". The role of University is to enable those with the most advanced skill potential to make the most of it. The person who benefits is the individual. Any other group or person who benefits does so incidentally. The role of Government is to protect life, liberty and property. None of which necessitates stealing money from all parts of society to fund vanity projects, establishing a state monopoly on the provision of services to the detriment of competitors who would otherwise improve the quality of service.

I thought you were left?

So that's a "no" then

Yes... Do you know what a neo-liberal is?

If the SPL 2 stuff comes in to play, we'll need to finish at least 8th to have any chance of being in it and not what's left below it. Right now even allowing for a potential Dundee flop a 10 point deduction would see us tumble, so it doesn't necessarily matter.

Whoever said the art of age-based condescension was dead? Edit: oh and Hague was 16.

What's sad about what I've said? I'm not a Tory. Nice try though.

This has absolutely no basis in reality at all. Education does not cost nothing. Lecture theatres use light, heating, computers use electricity, tutors need an income, roofs need repaired, libraries need books. Things cost money. If we lived in a world of infinite resources (here's the clue, no we don't) then things could be free. The reality is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. As a student I think it is perfectly fair that graduates pay the cost of their education. I don't think it's at all fair that someone who leaves school at 16 and works hard as e.g. an apprentice, then has to pay taxes so the state can pay for the University education of the children of millionaires. Okay let's just bust the myths in this. Tuition fees are not a debt to all intents and purposes for anyone except the absolute highest of graduate earners. Under the new system the slate is wiped clean after 30 years from graduation. That means it is effectively a tax on earnings over £21k. It is a graduate contribution linked to earnings with a total contribution cap which rises according to interest rates. It is NOT a debt for the purposes of mortgage calculation. It is NOT a debt for the purposes of applying for any other credit. The only debt a student will have after going to Uni is for their maintenance, and that is more than able to be mitigated by improved salaries and, heaven forbid, by working part-time during your degree. The £100k over the course of the working lifetime INCLUDES the amount lost by not being in full-time employment as a student. If we take the teacher in your example, they will ONLY pay back in line with their income. If someone earns about £21k (rising with inflation) every year for 30 years under this new scheme they pay back £8 a month. Yep. That's right. £8 a month. That's not even a round of drinks. If you think it's a farce that someone earning the median national wage and who has benefited from University education has to pay the equivalent of the price of a good second hand hatchback over 30 years by means of reparation, then fair enough. I don't.

Nothing neo-con about me at all. I am an economic neo-liberal. Of course University is a service. Its primary, dominant and overwhelming purpose is for the benefit of the individual student. Society only exists to the extent that individual interests coalesce by circumstance and mutuality. To suggest otherwise is to make it a massive social experiment that coerces people to conform to a form of tyranny masquerading as the non-existent general will. Altruism is the product of emotion. It is the result of individual morality derived from reason and emotion. It does not necessitate that the state does and funds everything and it does not necessitate coercion by the masses against everyone else. The situation is completely different now than it was then. There was rampant protectionism, Marshall Aid and a flawed Keynesian consensus, the pain of which was felt 25 years later when people realised that actually a state monopoly is the worst of all kinds of monopoly because it commands the 'legitimate' use of force. What we are now seeing is that we need to accept the government isn't the answer. People are not cured because the government steals your money. People are cured because doctors apply their excellence. People are not educated because the state socially engineers the conditions available to make it happen. People are educated because there are people who are intelligent and knowledgeable who are willing and able to impart their wisdom. Welfare is absolutely fine. The problem is the state doing it, as it coerces and makes it happen because the elite want it to happen to protect their position. If welfare is to happen, it should do so because people think it is the right thing to do. And those who do not think it is the right thing to do shouldn't be made to participate in it. Capitalism is not greed. This is caricature nonsense. EVERYTHING is a transaction. The only differences are the emotion and the reasoning the individuals apply in choosing to enter such a transaction.

Exactly! If you want to address the issue of widening access to those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, the retrospective graduate contribution is blatantly not the problem. The real problem is that in an effort to get people from poorer backgrounds into University, they have made it a free-for all. In order to get more poor students in, they've been letting academically mediocre students from slightly more affluent backgrounds in, which doesn't achieve anything. The solution is to give up on these ludicrous 50% school leavers at Uni targets. Get it back down to about 10-20% of school leavers, invest more back into the College programme so lots of school leavers can learn vocational skills. Set up the system so that those who benefit most from tertiary education pay the most, but those who gain little salary benefit should pay less or nothing at all. The new proposals only tackle half the battle. The University numbers are STILL going up and Colleges and Apprenticeships have been woefully stagnant for about 20 years. Exactly. Electricity bills don't pay themselves. Lecturers don't work for gravel. Library books don't grow on trees. It's completely unfair to put the burden of higher education onto the general taxpayer, effectively making the poor pay for the University education of the super-rich's children through a state bureaucracy. More than a smidgeon of truth though.

Sorry, but that makes virtually no sense at all. The repayment threshold is being increased by £6k. How could it possibly have been fair for students to start paying back for their education when they were barely on the breadline? At least £21k is actually near the national median wage. This "otherwise other governments would have been doing this" is also a complete non-sequitur as we have an unprecedented proportion of school leavers at University compared with 20-30 years ago. Then they're being sold the wrong information. To all intents and purposes tuition fees do not form a debt under these proposals because the slate is wiped clean after 30 years. The poorest graduates won't pay a single penny for their education and the bottom 23% earners will pay less than they do now. Never mind the fact that the cold hard statistics show the greatest tax burden was on the richest in this country when the top rate of income tax was at its lowest. The 50% tax rate is estimated to COST the treasury about £3 billion versus doing away with it. What a load of claptrap. We can afford Trident but it doesn't mean that either we should have it or that the general taxpayer should bear the cost. Primary and secondary education is compulsory and necessary to equip young people with the basic skills to look after themselves and get into the workplace. Tertiary education, especially University education, is not. It is hugely advantageous: yes. Indeed the typical graduate earns more than £100k over their working life more than the non-graduate. It is a service, and one which typically confers a massive individual benefit, and for that the graduate should pay towards it. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz sensationalist nonsense. Tax and Spend Labour GTF.

Is it worth pointing out that the IFS says the proposed changes are more progressive than both the current system and the Browne Review? People really don't understand the effect on students of this new fees package. For all but the wealthiest the change in the actual fee is completely meaningless because it's a graduate tax by another name at 9% on income over £21k for 30 years after which the slate is wiped clean (i.e. underwritten by the government, or the general taxpayer). The bottom 23% of graduate earners will be better off and someone who earns £30kpa over the course of their life will contribute a mere £2k more over the 30 years that they pay their graduate contribution than they do just now. I am absolutely astonished that anyone could claim that this would deter the poorest from applying for tertiary education in England. The student tuition debt figure is a complete paper exercise. It has absolutely zero effect on their ability to get a mortgage and to all intents and purposes it is not a debt but a 30 year graduate tax with a total contribution limit. That Miliband has refused to reverse the proposals says it all. His opposition, the NUS opposition and the opposition of the left generally is based on, to varying degrees, political opportunism and fundamental misunderstandings of the way the system works. Anyway, if you want to see what students have to say the other side of the fence of the ignorant majority (and I use the term ignorant not in the pejorative, but the factual sense) take a look here: clicky

It's two steps forward, three sideways and one step back. It's probably about as much as can be achieved as long as Scottish Football is full of sectional interests though.

He was offering a free "I'm a Malcontent" badge with every sale.

I saw absolutely no contact between Archie and the County player. Erskine was also denied a stonewaller and their number 2 should have walked for an elbow to Erskine's face. Erskine MOTM and a clever move to create our goal executed very well. Scott made a couple of good saves otherwise a pretty grim match. We were the better side (marginally) and a point is a reasonable return considering we spent 72 minutes of the game a man down.