Monday, March 31, 2014

OK, so how do we pay for it?

You can always tell when politicians are throwing out ideas to see how popular a policy might be when they start bandying words like 'radical' about. Some ideas sound great on the MSM, well at least until you look at the small print and ask how much?
Labour will fight the next election on a pledge to cut tuition fees by £3,000 as part of a "radical" manifesto
Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary and party’s general election strategist, said a promise to cut student fees is likely to appear in a “credible and radical” manifesto as part of the party’s promise to cut the cost of living for middle class families.
It follows a call by Ed Miliband in 2011 to cut tuition fees from £9,000 to £6,000.
It comes amid mounting concerns over the health of the tuition fees system. Ministers originally expected that 28 per cent of loans would never be repaid, but that is now thought to be closer to 45 per cent . At 48 per cent experts say any benefits from raising tuition fees are cancelled out, experts say.
Mr Alexander said the rate of default was “very high” and Labour would offer a “better solution” for the country’s finances.
“This seems to be another Con-Dem policy which is simply not working.
The last bit made me smile as tuition fees were introduced by Tony Blair in 1998 and were actually a Labour Party idea in order to pay for the massive new influx of students into university, rather than simply the elite.
Seems Labour as ever wish to rewrite history and whitewash their role in it.
Now reducing student debt and regaining any monies paid to them seems like a good idea, assuming you accept the premise that we should be sending so many of them off to Uni in the first place of which it could easily be argued that we don't. My problem as ever being just how do Labour expect to pay for it? Especially when it's on top of a promise to cut middle class debt (another Labour success story)
It does strike me like it always does with socialist pipe-dreams that they simply expect the money to be found and don't actually give a thought as to what will happen if they start soaking some part of the populace to do it. Pointless going after one of their core support groups, the middle class tend to vote either one of the parties in depending on whether they want a change or not so it doesn't bear upsetting them too much and the rich simply up and leave if you hit them.
So, like Labours previous economic successes leaving the country completely spent out and future generations in hock up to the eyeballs, this has all the hallmarks of magic money tree economics where they'll spend money we haven't got to get the student vote...
When will people wake up?

1 annotations:

Anonymous said...

As another of the LibLabCon admitted, "Read the small print".

The Labour government, which included 'Catastrophe Ed' Miliband, went to court to defend their right not to be held to any of their manifesto promises, and won.

So their manifesto is equivalent to used loo-paper.

'Catastrophe Ed' Miliband drove thru the Climate Change Bill (which was written by climate activists), and this Bill is responsible for any UK forthcoming energy blackouts because he and the other LibLabCon loons who can't do sums committed the UK to shutting down UK power supplies faster than WORKING* new ones were being introduced.

*These loons told the public that proven, reliable working power supplies were equivalent in real life to their ideological fantasy wind power supplies. And the massive subsidies of our money to wind power is making some people very rich - anyone want to make a bet on whether there is a connection?