The money is being spent elsewhere as well. NHS spending is up 600% in real terms since the 1960's. That's over £100bn *more*, when the entire government spending is only circa £800bn.Well that's because the scale of university entry is vastly higher than it was in the 80s when it was the preserve of a few. The debate around funding higher education is whether it ought to be funded from general taxation - in which cases taxes will have to go up significantly, or whether those go should fund it themselves. What has been abysmally handled is the idea of there being loans, when in effect they're really just a slightly higher rate of tax for university graduates, and should have been done that explicitly that way.
It isn't a matter at all of revenues being less, it's a matter of the number of students being vastly more.
Like anything, it's a choice, but all things do have to be paid for, and income tax alone is no kind of measure. The UK overall sits somewhere around the middle in European terms overall, so absolutely there could be scope for higher taxation if the electorate want it, or lower if they prefer that instead.
What is annoying is the way some try and paint this in moral terms, as though taxing and spending is inherently a matter of good versus evil. It's merely a question of trying to determine the most equitable and effective way of modest redistribution, nothing more.
And everyone's rushing to those world-renowned Spanish universities are they. Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Caltec and er Barcelona???Spain which by all measures is way poorer than the UK, charge students 800 euros a year for tuition fees.
The money is being spent elsewhere as well. NHS spending is up 600% in real terms since the 1960's. That's over £100bn *more*, when the entire government spending is only circa £800bn.
![]()
They would. You saying health and education should be properly funded is very cliche, as your version of properly of properly funded would be very different from someone else's. When you start applying figures and means of funding to those, you have policies.
Spain which by all measures is way poorer than the UK, charge students 800 euros a year for tuition fees.
OK not impressed by their universities.And everyone's rushing to those world-renowned Spanish universities are they. Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Caltec and er Barcelona???
Their *best* university ranks 135th on the world table. Brilliant.
My point is some people wouldn't want health and education properly funded, they would expect people to sort it out themselves and private enterprise to supply it, if you could not afford it then tough tits to you.
Which people would those be?My point is some people wouldn't want health and education properly funded, they would expect people to sort it out themselves and private enterprise to supply it, if you could not afford it then tough tits to you.
Miles of chorizo eaten per year:OK not impressed by their universities.
Homeless figures
UK. 307,000
Spain 40,000
Put that in your Tory pipe and smoke it.
OK not impressed by their universities.
Homeless figures
UK. 307,000
Spain 40,000
Put that in your Tory pipe and smoke it.
So properly funded means entirely paid for by the public purse? Every education course and every medical complaint should be covered by the taxpayer?
Miles of chorizo eaten per year:
Spain = 8,129
UK 3
And other useful stats. Shall we move on to Portugal next?
No, I don't. It just amused me how you seemingly picked a random stat out of the air about Spanish university fees and then another random one when that didn't find any supporters.If yo
If you think the number of people sleeping rough on the streets in the UK is unimportant so be it.
My Spanish wife was working in Liverpool last week and was genuinely shocked by what she saw.
What can I say, I am an anarcho-communist at heart, fuck it let's abolish money and make wealth creation about the betterment of mankind not the private purse
In fact let's sit watching godspell and create a massive commune
I always wonder how many Americans cotton on to that being more or less exactly what Star Trek is.
If yo
If you think the number of people sleeping rough on the streets in the UK is unimportant so be it.
My Spanish wife was working in Liverpool last week and was genuinely shocked by what she saw.
Thanks for that promising legislation. Will watch with interest.No, I don't. It just amused me how you seemingly picked a random stat out of the air about Spanish university fees and then another random one when that didn't find any supporters.
307,000 homeless people is shocking and appalling. What would you suggest we do about it?
Maybe bring in a Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and force authorities to take action perhaps?
The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 is one of the biggest changes to the rights of homeless people in England for 15 years. It effectively bolts two new duties to the original statutory rehousing duty:
Shelter supports the legislation because it extends entitlements to help, places a renewed focus on the prevention of homelessness and local joint working, and has the potential to provide more client-focussed, personalised statutory homelessness services.
- Duty to prevent homelessness
- Duty to relieve homelessness
Surely the evil Tories cannot be behind this???
Well that's a pretty daft thing to say given that the homelessness rate is barely a third of what it was at the peak in 2003.
I'm certainly not going to point fingers at Labour for a complex issue, but clearly you're going to try.
Neither of us need to be told, it is not great and is one of the reasons so many young spanish work in the UK.Did you tell her you were genuinely shocked by an unemployment rate four times higher than here, or was this a one way discussion about problems?