How does the Tory government help the man in the street?

[SueEllen]

Not necessarily, we have enough 'rooms' for three times our population in theory but the distribution of these is skewed to the very richest (manor houses and all that). Of course that doesn't work in practise because a spare room is always a good thing.

If you are really into this read Inequality and the 1% by Danny Dorling, he's a professor at Oxford Uni and actually a nice guy (I've met him, at a lecture). He's studied in detail things such as housing and wealth distribution. I think the ratio is 1/3 rooms occupied from the lecture two years ago, I doubt that's gone to 1/1 in just two years.

That's specifically on housing, the rest of his book is a good enough read I guess.

Soo young...

[henryhooverville]

Soo young...

It's a well researched book, and Danny Dorling is foremost in his field. But it is reflecting on numbers more than anything.

If you can spare a tenner and six hours give it a read, if economics is your jive.

On the issue of the young, my old Sixth Form has about a quarter less funding than before 2015 and funding for 19 years olds is cut. The conservatives don't like a skills-based economy, and that's bad for employers and decreases potential economic growth over the next few decades.

Education, Education, Education... as out titans recite but there isn't really a solution to that.

[SueEllen]

Can't handle two. When the old one is going to be closed down?

Soo young

[NigelJK]

The conservatives don't like a skills-based economy,

Back this up with some facts dude.

[d000hg]

Millipede would have been better, sad but true.

He'd get 50% tax back, but that would still be less than dividend hike by fooking Cons.

You don't think they'd have done the same? You don't think they would've increased CT or stopped it's further reduction? You think they would've increased the HT threshold - that surely has a big effect on contractors.

Also we were talking about the man on the street. Which is not contractors on £400/day struggling how to avoid paying HR tax

[henryhooverville]

Back this up with some facts dude.

Go to page 24: http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/spcc/WP13.pdf using the data here only in 2014 did the level return to pre-recession levels but FE funding has dropped sharply, and real spending has also dropped. Furthermore if you look at figure 1a here https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_res...rvey/education the official figures and independent analysis shows a drop in the first term of Consevative government in real terms for schools funding overall.

The Apprenticeship programme may offset this as you have 3 million new ones (pre-brexit target) but you have to consider they are only now getting to degree equivalent levels (which is a good thing). But I see the apprenticeship program as a Lib Dem policy in terms of 2010 government. The apprenticeship levy will fund this so businesses are paying for their own apprentices in effect. It's wasn't dreamt up by the Conservatives and kudos to them for keeping this policy.

Furthermore the increase in university tuition fees puts a lot of debt on students, it means universities have more funding and have to allocate more of that funding for poorer students; whether this actually happens is another matter. I have spoken to Diane Reay at Cambridge and she bemoans that while Cambridge University has really brilliant bursaries they are rarely cashed as the predominantly rich students aren't eligible to claim them, nor are international students. That means they lose a lot of budding talent.

Also consider this debt is guaranteed by subsequent governments, so either way they pay the debt it's just that with student loans you pay interest on top as well. Talk about fiddling the books.

If you want a skills-based economy which grows exponentially, you don't privatize all your schools and shove the cost of schooling onto future gorvernments. With soverign debt at about 80% I think (How large is the UK’s national debt, and why does it matter?) and 95% being the typical oh tulip moment, unless GDP grows at a faster pace than your debt there's a problem. In the long term it is more expensive, and education is long term - consider the teacher shortages (Ministers 'have no plan to address teacher shortages' - BBC News) which mean worse results as years go by across primary and secondary schools.

If you want to say that the Conservatives are building a resilient skills-based economy, I'd ask besides apprenticeships what's resilient? What happens if there's another recession? Why all the manufactured debt? I really don't see it, it's the lesser of two evils and you don't need that in education.

[Platypus]

Here's one I thought of,

Raising the Tax Free Allowance and increasing the Min. Wage.

[NigelJK]

Go to page 24: http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/spcc/WP13.pdf using the data here only in 2014 did the level return to pre-recession levels but FE funding has dropped sharply, and real spending has also dropped.

That document deals with the coalition government and was a necessary policy to try and raise the standard of Degree's in this country. An effect of the previous governments policy of 'university for all'.

The Apprenticeship programme may offset this as you have 3 million new ones (pre-brexit target) but you have to consider they are only now getting to degree equivalent levels (which is a good thing). But I see the apprenticeship program as a Lib Dem policy in terms of 2010 government. The apprenticeship levy will fund this so businesses are paying for their own apprentices in effect. It's wasn't dreamt up by the Conservatives and kudos to them for keeping this policy.

Apprenticeships have been around since the middle ages. Parties of all colours (except the 'New Labour' project) have encouraged their take up as pound for pound they produce more GDP in the long run.

Furthermore the increase in university tuition fees puts a lot of debt on students, it means universities have more funding and have to allocate more of that funding for poorer students; whether this actually happens is another matter. I have spoken to Diane Reay at Cambridge and she bemoans that while Cambridge University has really brilliant bursaries they are rarely cashed as the predominantly rich students aren't eligible to claim them, nor are international students. That means they lose a lot of budding talent.

You're making a common mistake, there are fundamental differences between skills and academia. If you and your family can afford a career for you in academia then by all means go for it. If you wish to nurture a skill set then the workplace is the best place to pick them up. Very few companies in this country (average number of employees = 20) cannot afford to carry a graduate whilst they accumulate those skills. Their learning is not aimed at that outcome, it's aimed at an academic career.

If you want to say that the Conservatives are building a resilient skills-based economy, I'd ask besides apprenticeships what's resilient?

There are a whole host of careers (mostly dependant on learning on the job) which fulfil this slot.

[sasguru]

... raise the standard of Degree's in this country...

Maybe they should start with basic English Language skills

[shaunbhoy]

Maybe they should start with basic English Language skills?