UK Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Whirlwind**

reds8n wrote:
and so it begins...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/08/two-tier-nhs-gps-allow-patients-pay-jump-the-queue-bournemouth?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=blast2017-02-09

Fears of 'two-tier NHS' as GPs allow fee-paying patients to jump the queue
MPs claim Dorset Private GP service, at up to £145 per appointment, will mean NHS patients without money will wait even longer for care

Family doctors in Bournemouth have set up the first private GP service at which people who pay up to £145 a time will be seen faster and get longer appointments than their NHS patients.

The creation of the clinic has prompted fears that other GPs will follow suit and that NHS patients will become “second-class citizens” as general practice increasingly becomes a two-tier health service.

The three doctors running the Dorset Private GP service are offering “the unhurried, thorough, personal care we believe is best for patients” – at a price. Patients pay £40 for a 10-minute phone consultation, £80 for a 20-minute face-to-face appointment and £145 for 40 minutes with a GP.

Well at least we now what they meant when they'd get £350m extra for the NHS...

This sort of thing should be scotched immediately though. If they want go full private then that's fine, but they should source their own equipment, offices, rooms and so on just like any other business would. This is just taking time away from public NHS users and exploiting publicly owned equipment for their own gains. It will put more pressure on A&E as well because if there is a large take up then those that can't afford to pay will never get seen and resort to using A&E or other services which aren't appropriate.

On an aside there is a petition open on proportional representation. Although I don't expect the Tories to even consider it as they have the most to lose from it I would recommend that if you feel FPTP is outdated that people sign it.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168657

**r_squared**

I'm not convinced on proportional representation. Whilst it certainly has democratic advantages, it can also have some pretty grim disadvantages....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

No one wants to see Nigel Farage any more smug. We'd have to invent a whole new word to describe an emotion to fit an odious little twunt who seems to inexplicably be getting their own way.

**A Town Called Malus**

r_squared wrote:
I'm not convinced on proportional representation. Whilst it certainly has democratic advantages, it can also have some pretty grim disadvantages....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

No one wants to see Nigel Farage any more smug. We'd have to invent a whole new word to describe an emotion to fit an odious little twunt who seems to inexplicably be getting their own way.

But would that actually have ended up being any different to what we got? There would have been a Tory/UKIP coalition, so it would be exactly the same as now in other words

**Whirlwind**

r_squared wrote:
I'm not convinced on proportional representation. Whilst it certainly has democratic advantages, it can also have some pretty grim disadvantages....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

No one wants to see Nigel Farage any more smug. We'd have to invent a whole new word to describe an emotion to fit an odious little twunt who seems to inexplicably be getting their own way.

Although I am just as opposed to NF and his distasteful views, I still support proportional representation. The number of MPs should represent the proportion of votes cast, democratically it is better representative of the population. In addition it may re-engage an electorate that is disillusioned and just not voting because "it makes no difference in their area" because it is so red/blue/yellow/green/insert as applicable. We also would have less pressure on MPs to concentrate on the swing areas whilst ignoring those that will vote one way or another regardless. It should also help in the accusation that areas are at risk of voter fraud as MPs/opponents will have more reason to engage with such areas.

I don't think we should be in a situation where we avoid a better more representative electoral system just because one party is distasteful to a significant proportion of the electorate. That is a step in a direction which ends up in a one party state. If they share power then they will also have to take start taking responsibility for their actions (something LDs learnt the hard way in 2015).

**Ketara**

The problem with proportional however, is that it ends 'local' democracy. You don't have an MP to write to anymore. Not to mention that I actually dislike how fringe groups often garner enough votes to become kingmakers and thus get to enact radical policies in exchange (see Israel for a case in point).

It's a thorny one. Neither is perfect. Personally? I'd like a mix of the two. Stick half the seats up as geographic first past the post, and distribute the other half based upon total votes. That should shake it up enough minority gets some seats and representation, but needs to have enough support across the nation to get into government.

**Mr Heretek**

Whirlwind wrote:
r_squared wrote:
I'm not convinced on proportional representation. Whilst it certainly has democratic advantages, it can also have some pretty grim disadvantages....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

No one wants to see Nigel Farage any more smug. We'd have to invent a whole new word to describe an emotion to fit an odious little twunt who seems to inexplicably be getting their own way.

Although I am just as opposed to NF and his distasteful views, I still support proportional representation. The number of MPs should represent the proportion of votes cast, democratically it is better representative of the population. In addition it may re-engage an electorate that is disillusioned and just not voting because "it makes no difference in their area" because it is so red/blue/yellow/green/insert as applicable. We also would have less pressure on MPs to concentrate on the swing areas whilst ignoring those that will vote one way or another regardless. It should also help in the accusation that areas are at risk of voter fraud as MPs/opponents will have more reason to engage with such areas.

I don't think we should be in a situation where we avoid a better more representative electoral system just because one party is distasteful to a significant proportion of the electorate. That is a step in a direction which ends up in a one party state. If they share power then they will also have to take start taking responsibility for their actions (something LDs learnt the hard way in 2015).

I agree with much of what you say, but with proportional variation you get too much democracy. With it expect all your funny little fringe parties having more of a say than they should, were as your big parties get diminished strength. With it you will have a bigger powder keg in your parliament as the fringe parties get more say and more power. Proportional Representation might even give your Scottish Party control over the English Parties as they are proportionally extremely dominant up there. Never forget that Proportional Representation was the gateway for extremist Right Wong Groups to slowly but surely take power in Europe. Without Proportional Representation we may never have had Hitler and the Nazis in power and we could have been one world war less. You could easily create more disillusionment in your electorate with Proportional Representation, less power for the big parties, more power and say for the fringes, means less agreement, making it harder for the UK government to pass laws etc. I can't sign it as I am not English, but even if I was I would never sign such a petition.

**King Henry VIII**

Ketara wrote:
The problem with proportional however, is that it ends 'local' democracy. You don't have an MP to write to anymore. Not to mention that I actually dislike how fringe groups often garner enough votes to become kingmakers and thus get to enact radical policies in exchange (see Israel for a case in point).

It's a thorny one. Neither is perfect. Personally? I'd like a mix of the two. Stick half the seats up as geographic first past the post, and distribute the other half based upon total votes. That should shake it up enough minority gets some seats and representation, but needs to have enough support across the nation to get into government.

Maybe it could be tied in with (long overdue) reform of the house of lords.

Keep parliament based around the constituency MP but have a proportional second chamber.

(Or, you could give all the power back to me so I can crack on with the marrying and beheading and all that)

**Whirlwind**

Ketara wrote:
The problem with proportional however, is that it ends 'local' democracy. You don't have an MP to write to anymore. Not to mention that I actually dislike how fringe groups often garner enough votes to become kingmakers and thus get to enact radical policies in exchange (see Israel for a case in point).

There are ways round this though. Rather than having national proportional representation you regionalise it (lets say East Midlands to start). Each region is allocated a number of seats based on it's population from census information (so if you have 5% of the population you get 5% of the seats). The region MPs then get voted in on a proportional perspective. Those MPs are then there to represent the whole region so you can approach the best MP that aligns with your views. As it stands a lot of regions have people locked out because their views don't align with the MPs which disenfranchises some of the electorate (for example imagine you have a liberal issue, say LGBT rights with a Tory MP that is opposed to such rights, how much traction is that person going to get from their local MP?)

There's already plenty of countries that use PR (or a form of) that don't get bogged down by small kingmaker groups (strictly speaking the EU elections are a form of PR for example).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Heretek wrote:
Proportional Representation might even give your Scottish Party control over the English Parties as they are proportionally extremely dominant up there.

Strictly speaking SNP would have less dominance than they do now with PR. Scotland gets a larger share of seats than it's populace. PR would reduce the number of SNP seats and hence their overall 'control'

Never forget that Proportional Representation was the gateway for extremist Right Wong Groups to slowly but surely take power in Europe. Without Proportional Representation we may never have had Hitler and the Nazis in power and we could have been one world war less. You could easily create more disillusionment in your electorate with Proportional Representation, less power for the big parties, more power and say for the fringes, means less agreement, making it harder for the UK government to pass laws etc. I can't sign it as I am not English, but even if I was I would never sign such a petition.

The EU is a PR system but has not been taken over by extreme right wing groups. Hitler used referendums to gain some of what he wanted because of the simple binary choice (but it's massively more complex than this). With appropriate controls PR is fine, it already works in many countries (New Zealand for example is not a hot bed of right wing loonies).

**Compel**

Isn't that just, effectively, exactly the electorate college? In other words, paving the field for the UK's own Trumpster?

**AlmightyWalrus**

Compel wrote:
Isn't that just, effectively, exactly the electorate college? In other words, paving the field for the UK's own Trumpster?

Not if the regional seats are also alotted proportionately. If Madeupshire has 15% of the population, it gets 15% of the seats in Parliament. If the Monster Raving Loony Party gets 28% of the votes in Madeupshire, they get 28% of those 15%. Obviously some sort of way to make sure one party doesn't get disproportionately fethed by rounding is required, but the big issue with the Electoral College is that it disenfranchises any one who lives in a state that isn't contested. A Democrat in Texas or a Republican in California has no real reason to vote. If the regional seats are allocated proportionately, there'd still be a point in showing up and voting even if you're in the minority in a given area.

**Kilkrazy**

Ketara wrote:
The problem with proportional however, is that it ends 'local' democracy. You don't have an MP to write to anymore. Not to mention that I actually dislike how fringe groups often garner enough votes to become kingmakers and thus get to enact radical policies in exchange (see Israel for a case in point).

It's a thorny one. Neither is perfect. Personally? I'd like a mix of the two. Stick half the seats up as geographic first past the post, and distribute the other half based upon total votes. That should shake it up enough minority gets some seats and representation, but needs to have enough support across the nation to get into government.

Japan has a system in which districts elect representatives directly and the popular vote is also used to allocate more party seats proportionally.

It isn't perfect, and still results in Kanagawa Prefecture residents having half the vote "power" as some rural districts, but it does contain the basics of a system that could support both direct and proportional representation.

Much though I loathe the UKIP, they did gain 13% of the votes at the last general election. It seems a travesty of democracy and justice that all those people have not a single representative in Parliament. Rather than languishing in outer darkness, wailing and gnashing their teeth and writing Daily Mail editorials, UKIP members should be in the Commons fething up big time in debates and stuff.

A possible way forwards would be to convert the House of Lords to a proportionally elected Party based house, while keeping the Commons as directly representative.

**Ketara**

Should I Be Freaked Out That the Government Is Selling Off Student Debt to Private Companies?
RR
Rebecca Ratcliffe
Feb 11 2017, 8:00am

We spoke to Martin Lewis, finance guru, about what it means for you.

Nobody likes getting a letter from the Student Loans Company; an annual reminder that you owe around £44,000 is – like most things you get through the post – depressing. But it could be about to get even more grim. This week, the government announced that it would sell off student debt to private companies. Graduates in England who took out loans between 2002-2006 will be the first to be affected.

The government wants to sell off student debt so that it can bring in money now – and the plan is to raise £12 billion from the sale. But experts have questioned if the government will manage to get a decent price from the private sector (politicians don't have a great track record on this kind of thing). The danger is that ministers will be so desperate to sell off the debt and appeal to buyers that they'll screw over graduates in the process. This might mean retrospectively changing the threshold for repayments – something which has already affected people who took out loans after 2012, and will cost those students thousands of pounds. This is all on top of the practical things that might change if you suddenly owe money to a private company – like, for example, whether your student loan will suddenly appear on your credit report, or whether you'd still get letters from the Student Loans Company.

We spoke to Martin Lewis, founder of Moneysavingexpert.com, who has become something of an activist on this issue, to find out what's going on and how worried graduates should be.

VICE: What does "selling off the student loan book" actually mean?
Martin Lewis: It's effectively a way for the government to bring cash in now rather than having to wait for it. The government will sell the underlying debt that is owed – so commercial companies will be the ones who gain from the money when it's being paid back. I hope, for those people who have those loans, that in practice it doesn't mean very much. I hope.

Weren't there loads of problems last time the government sold off the student loans?
There were. When they sold pre-1998 loans [which had different repayment terms to the current system] there were three main things that went wrong. The new companies changed the forms people had to fill out to defer payments [graduates used to fill out forms to confirm they weren't earning enough to start paying back]. These forms were much more intrusive and badly designed. Deferments were wrongly processed, which was a nightmare for people. There was a general feeling that Erudio, the company that bought the loans, was pushing very hard to stop deferments. The third thing was that student loans for the first time appeared on your credit file, which they'd never done before. The practical impact of this wasn't very bad, but it worried people.

Could all of that happen again?
The government is saying that student loans will not go on to people's credit files – I've got that in writing. I've had things in writing before that have been overturned, but my hope is that students won't notice any difference. Hopefully – the way they're saying this will work – is you'll continue to pay the student loans company [rather than having to pay a private company]. But until this actually happens – they haven't sold it, we don't know who the buyer is – I'm not willing to come out and say there won't be any difference. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

There's a privacy issue here – a lot of people would say: 'I've got a relationship with the state, why has it been moved into the commercial sector?"

If student loans appear on your credit records, would this make it harder for you to get a loan or a mortgage?
I've been [told] point blank that it's not being put on credit reports. But were it to be put on credit reports, it would have more impact on your credit card and loan applications than it would on your mortgage application. Mortgages have much more detailed checks and will ask questions about your student loan anyway.

It's hard to say what the impact of a student loan would be. Anything you do with debt has pros and cons. The fact you have an outstanding debt is bad, the fact you have an outstanding credit is good, the fact you're paying back on time is good. But it's how it adds up that matters, and every lender scores you differently. What we certainly do know is that if you're not paying it off when you should be then that would definitely have an effect.

There's also a privacy issue here – a lot of people would say: "I've got a relationship with the state, why has it been moved into the commercial sector?" I think there's a real argument for that.

Could a private company suddenly start charging you more?
No, but the government might do that. What I find very worrying is the government feels it needs to appeal to the buyers of the debt. So how will they behave to make the debt more attractive?For example, the chancellor was asked a question on the retrospective hike in loan repayments [the government backtracked on its promise to raise the threshold for repayments in line with average earnings, which will cost some graduates thousands of pounds]. He said that given it was "preparing the student loan book, ultimately, for sale as an asset" the decision was unlikely to be reversed.

So the government is even less likely to protect graduates and keep its promises if it's trying to sell off the loan book?
The chancellor's argument is that the rights of students to have a fair contract and what they were promised is not as important as giving security to potential buyers of the debt. You've got to get your priorities right – and the priorities for me are students and young people, and that the political system lives up to what it promises them.

Will the sale of the student loan book definitely happen?
Yes, they've started the sale. They need to find someone who will buy it, but I'd be very surprised if this didn't go ahead. The loans made to students from 2002-06 will be the first ones to be sold. Whether they sell it or not will depend on the price they're setting and how that compares to market conditions. The issue with this debt is that many people won't repay it in full.

Should people with student loans be worried?
Practically, I hope there'll be no impact. I do think there is an impact in terms of how the government will approach loans in the future – and we've seen that with the 2012 repayment threshold. As to what you can do about it? Cross your fingers, hope it will be OK and get on with your life. But be prepared to protest if there is a practical issue, and do protest about the impact of [the retrospective hike in payments faced by] 2012 students, because that's outrageous.

Interesting.

**Howard A Treesong**

If a private company get their hands on student loans it'll cost us money. As soon as you privatise and greedy managers and shareholders get involved, who directly profit from the company, then they'll be looking to wheedle money out of it any way they can.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ketara wrote:
The problem with proportional however, is that it ends 'local' democracy. You don't have an MP to write to anymore. Not to mention that I actually dislike how fringe groups often garner enough votes to become kingmakers and thus get to enact radical policies in exchange (see Israel for a case in point).

It's a thorny one. Neither is perfect. Personally? I'd like a mix of the two. Stick half the seats up as geographic first past the post, and distribute the other half based upon total votes. That should shake it up enough minority gets some seats and representation, but needs to have enough support across the nation to get into government.

In other words, what you're arguing for is the system the Scottish Parliament uses: half of the MSPs are elected by FPTP, the other half elected by proportional representation under the D'Hondt system.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
If a private company get their hands on student loans it'll cost us money. As soon as you privatise and greedy managers and shareholders get involved, who directly profit from the company, then they'll be looking to wheedle money out of it any way they can.

But if you don't have two pennies to rub together, there's very little they can do to claw that money back.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
On another note, at the end of the day, changes to the voting system are all academic.

Leaving aside my pro-Scottish independence stance here for a minute, and let's focus on reality:

Westminster is not interested in change, change if any happens at a glacial pace, and usually, has to be wrenched from the dead hand of the Commons.

They have no interest in devolving power away from London to other parts of England, no interest in scraping the Lords (long overdue in my book) and forgive my bias, have not lifted a finger to preserve the United Kingdom.

They backtracked on promises made ahead of the last Scotland bill.

They refuse to bend even a little, and ultimately, will break.

They did it with America, they did it with Ireland, and they will repeat the same mistake with Scotland.

**r_squared**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
If a private company get their hands on student loans it'll cost us money. As soon as you privatise and greedy managers and shareholders get involved, who directly profit from the company, then they'll be looking to wheedle money out of it any way they can.

The Govt also loses control over the loans. Who's to suppose that any company that buys the loans, won't sell them to someone else?
As to enforcing repayment if you have no pennies to rub together, there's always normal debt enforcement, which is damaging in so many ways and can affect people for many years.

I'm not hopeful that it'll end up well for students, but I'm also not surprised that the Govt is happy to screw over the younger generations for a quick buck.
I hope all those young conservatives are taking note of this, they might need to refrain from setting too many £20 notes on fire.

**Howard A Treesong**

Most people do have two pennies to rub together, the idea they'll stop chasing you're actually destitute is not much comfort. My main concern is that a private owner would constantly seek to increase payments and the interest rate, and that's a pressure you have to carry on your wages for most of your working life.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Most people do have two pennies to rub together, the idea they'll stop chasing you're actually destitute is not much comfort. My main concern is that a private owner would constantly seek to increase payments and the interest rate, and that's a pressure you have to carry on your wages for most of your working life.

Yes, If people are earning above a certain threshold, they will obviously have to pay something back, but if you're barely earning, have no assests, stocks or shares etc etc

there is not a lot they can do. This is a civil debt and not a criminal debt.

And of course, Scottish debt enforcement is different to England and Wales. Up here, we don't have High Court enforcement officers, Scots law being different to English and Welsh law.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Most people do have two pennies to rub together, the idea they'll stop chasing you're actually destitute is not much comfort. My main concern is that a private owner would constantly seek to increase payments and the interest rate, and that's a pressure you have to carry on your wages for most of your working life.

Yes, If people are earning above a certain threshold, they will obviously have to pay something back, but if you're barely earning, have no assests, stocks or shares etc etc

there is not a lot they can do. This is a civil debt and not a criminal debt.

And of course, Scottish debt enforcement is different to England and Wales. Up here, we don't have High Court enforcement officers, Scots law being different to English and Welsh law.

Right, and what if a future government/private owner wants to lower that repayment threshold?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Most people do have two pennies to rub together, the idea they'll stop chasing you're actually destitute is not much comfort. My main concern is that a private owner would constantly seek to increase payments and the interest rate, and that's a pressure you have to carry on your wages for most of your working life.

Yes, If people are earning above a certain threshold, they will obviously have to pay something back, but if you're barely earning, have no assests, stocks or shares etc etc

there is not a lot they can do. This is a civil debt and not a criminal debt.

And of course, Scottish debt enforcement is different to England and Wales. Up here, we don't have High Court enforcement officers, Scots law being different to English and Welsh law.

Right, and what if a future government/private owner wants to lower that repayment threshold?

There are probably hundreds of thousands of students out there who are effected by this. Students by and large, tend to be smart.

The Poll Tax brought one Conservative Prime Minister down, so if students past and present get organised and fight back, the government gets in trouble.

For younger dakka members, take it from me, Tory governments always over reach themselves with something, be it this, be it corruption, be it arrogance.

They are an incompetent shower and they are lucky the opposition is non-existent, but their luck won't hold forever...

**Mr. Burning**

Student debt will become an asset to whatever company (ies) get hold of it.It'll fund a pension or whatever investment fund it can be tied to.

If it comes to that It will be interesting to see who invests in it. All that long term potential will be inviting to large fund holders including public sector schemes.

**Kilkrazy**

Student nurse applications are down 28%, in response to the removal of bursaries for student nurses.

**Mr. Burning**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Student nurse applications are down 28%, in response to the removal of bursaries for student nurses.

IS there a shortage of nurses to fill positions? I thought GP's and junior Doctors were badly affected.

**Kilkrazy**

GPs definitely and nurses. Junior hospital doctors see to be all right for now. Presumably even Jeremy Hunt has a maximum work rate.

**r_squared**

Students aren't, by and large, tory supporters, so there's not much of a political risk for the conservatives when pulling this sort of thing.

Mind you, I have noticed a lot more 20 somethings who support the tories these days. Had an interesting chat with one the other day who firmly believes, amongst other things, that all mainstream media is "fake news".
I always felt that you couldn't start your slide to the right, until you had at least 40 years under your belt. Just to make sure you had had enough unceasing grind, and perhaps enjoyed the lively debate of having teenagers of your own, to make sure you are cynical, and bitter enough, to start turning that way.

**Silent Puffin?**

Mr. Burning wrote:

IS there a shortage of nurses to fill positions?

Yes, at the moment the shortage is being covered by immigrants. This may prove to be a problem in the nearish future....

**jhe90**

r_squared wrote:
Students aren't, by and large, tory supporters, so there's not much of a political risk for the conservatives when pulling this sort of thing.

Mind you, I have noticed a lot more 20 somethings who support the tories these days. Had an interesting chat with one the other day who firmly believes, amongst other things, that all mainstream media is "fake news".
I always felt that you couldn't start your slide to the right, until you had at least 40 years under your belt. Just to make sure you had had enough unceasing grind, and perhaps enjoyed the lively debate of having teenagers of your own, to make sure you are cynical, and bitter enough, to start turning that way.

Given polarising of EU Brexit etc... General rules are kinda broken.
This is a new age...

The old rules are gone.
The old parties are not thee only ones.
Ukip.
Donald Trump too..

Everything is new.

**r_squared**

jhe90 wrote:
r_squared wrote:
Students aren't, by and large, tory supporters, so there's not much of a political risk for the conservatives when pulling this sort of thing.

Mind you, I have noticed a lot more 20 somethings who support the tories these days. Had an interesting chat with one the other day who firmly believes, amongst other things, that all mainstream media is "fake news".
I always felt that you couldn't start your slide to the right, until you had at least 40 years under your belt. Just to make sure you had had enough unceasing grind, and perhaps enjoyed the lively debate of having teenagers of your own, to make sure you are cynical, and bitter enough, to start turning that way.

Given polarising of EU Brexit etc... General rules are kinda broken.
This is a new age...

The old rules are gone.
The old parties are not thee only ones.
Ukip.
Donald Trump too..

Everything is new.

Yep, everything is always new. It'll be something new new in a generation or two too. Maybe the lib dems or whigs will have a resurgence and throw off the shackles of the alt-right establishment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Silent Puffin? wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:

IS there a shortage of nurses to fill positions?

Yes, at the moment the shortage is being covered by immigrants. This may prove to be a problem in the nearish future....

That may lead to the hastening of the end of the generation that Whirlwind has mentioned once or twice. Ironic.

**wuestenfux**

jhe90 wrote:
r_squared wrote:
Students aren't, by and large, tory supporters, so there's not much of a political risk for the conservatives when pulling this sort of thing.

Mind you, I have noticed a lot more 20 somethings who support the tories these days. Had an interesting chat with one the other day who firmly believes, amongst other things, that all mainstream media is "fake news".
I always felt that you couldn't start your slide to the right, until you had at least 40 years under your belt. Just to make sure you had had enough unceasing grind, and perhaps enjoyed the lively debate of having teenagers of your own, to make sure you are cynical, and bitter enough, to start turning that way.

Given polarising of EU Brexit etc... General rules are kinda broken.
This is a new age...

The old rules are gone.
The old parties are not thee only ones.
Ukip.
Donald Trump too..

Everything is new.

Protectionism and isolation.
A world of good deals. In politics this can be bad. We need win-win situations for all participating partners

**jhe90**

wuestenfux wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
r_squared wrote:
Students aren't, by and large, tory supporters, so there's not much of a political risk for the conservatives when pulling this sort of thing.

Mind you, I have noticed a lot more 20 somethings who support the tories these days. Had an interesting chat with one the other day who firmly believes, amongst other things, that all mainstream media is "fake news".
I always felt that you couldn't start your slide to the right, until you had at least 40 years under your belt. Just to make sure you had had enough unceasing grind, and perhaps enjoyed the lively debate of having teenagers of your own, to make sure you are cynical, and bitter enough, to start turning that way.

Given polarising of EU Brexit etc... General rules are kinda broken.
This is a new age...

The old rules are gone.
The old parties are not thee only ones.
Ukip.
Donald Trump too..

Everything is new.

Protectionism and isolation.
A world of good deals. In politics this can be bad. We need win-win situations for all participating partners

Win win is pretty damn impossible in global political environment.

**r_squared**

jhe90 wrote:
...Win win is pretty damn impossible in global political environment.

That's how Trump thinks, and it's not true. Trade can be win win, if you're not a complete asrehole.