The Clegg phenomenon and the 2010 UK Election

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I understand nel's quizzical look at students in Cambridge from well off families protesting about tuition fees but a lot of the protests are about solidarity with the section of society that is going to be cut off from higher education by these policies. Were it merely a protest about personal inconvenience I would share her cynicism. But the nation is wider than the narrow privileged Oxbridge upper class community.
Eborr is right that part of the ethos of post war Britain is of opportunity for all. If one gets a well paid job from university education then the way to claw the cost back is through income taxes. This is understood to be a fair process by the British public.

But another important aspect of the anger is that the Conservatives are only in power with a policy of rolling back the state by their coalition with a minor party of the left, the Liberal Democrats. A loud claim by the Liberal Democrats before and during the election campaign was that they would abolish tuition fees. They did well electorally in university towns due to student voters not wishing to vote for Conservatives nor for a party of the left that had led the country into Bush's wars. Reversing their pre-election policy on fees once they were in shared power was too much for many of their voters.

[Túrin Turambar]

don't want to say too much more about this it makes me to angry and a comment to LM regarding Arts degrees, they are not supposed to give you a practical advantage to the jobs market, an Arts degree from a proper University is a market which says that you are capable of understanding information in a wide range of formats and have the capabilites to deal with all the nuances that form part of the human experience. I think you will find quite a number of our barristers start off with arts degree and only pick up on law when they go into the Inns of Court.

This is the sales pitch for Liberal Arts, but I’m coming to find it more and more suspect. And I’m not speaking from ignorance here, as I have an Arts degree myself. Griffith University doesn’t offer straight law degrees to undergraduates, so I did the double degree Law-Arts program. My Arts degree was (is?) in politics and public policy. And while it had a few good subjects, I honestly can’t say that I learned more general, useful skills about research, reading, writing, and thinking from my law degree or from my general life outside university (like participating on these messageboards) than I did from doing Arts. I was left with some good knowledge of politics and government. In particular, I learned a lot about political ideology and political institutions. But some subjects were simply postmodern gobbledegook. And even the knowledge that I did gain won’t go that far on the job market for a young graduate. As with all Arts degrees, there’s far more graduates than there are jobs needing the degree, and more importantly, they tend to require more practical experience than a fresh graduate is likely to have.

That’s why I’m starting to think that Arts, outside languages and English, History, or other subjects needed for teaching in schools, should be a postgraduate area of study (with some other exceptions, like criminology). Arts schools encourage undergraduates to either take straight Arts degrees or Arts degrees in conjunction with law or commerce degrees on the basis that learning Arts provides ‘context’ (Hence Griffith University’s focus on ‘Law in Context’). But I think that they may have it backwards, and that it is the Arts that needs the context, not the other degree. I think that an Arts student is much better off with the intellectual training provided by studying law or economics than a law or economics student is with the training provided by studying Arts. I saw that every time I compared straight law students with straight arts students and others doing the double program like me. And that would also guarantee that people studying those fields would genuinely want to go down that road, and wouldn’t just be taking the degree as a time-filler (as I admit I was).

The reality is that too many students enrol in Arts without any idea of what they’re going to do with it, but are egged along by parents who think that any degree is better than no degree, a society which views academic education as being simply ‘better’ than vocational education, and universities that make vague promises about how employers won’t fail to be impressed by the letter after your name and what they represent. I’d like to see them shielded from some of that disappointment at the end. Had I done commerce as my other degree and not arts, I’d be on 45k a year or more right now and not sitting in a trailer without any chance of advancement in life within grasp. And I wouldn’t have any fewer academic or life skills, either. I don’t view it as society’s responsibility to employ me on a salary relative to the time, effort and money I put into my education, but I can’t help feel that I was strung along by the Arts faculty.

I understand nel's quizzical look at students in Cambridge from well off families protesting about tuition fees but a lot of the protests are about solidarity with the section of society that is going to be cut off from higher education by these policies.

I honestly can’t see who these people are. The Government still lends the money and you don’t repay a shilling unless you make twenty-one thousand pounds a year. Education is still free upfront.

I’ve long learned to take the ‘solidarity’ of well-off upper- and middle-class students with the working classes with a grain of salt. What these protests really show, to me, is open contempt for people who work and pay taxes to support students at university. I saw plenty enough of that when I was a student. I doubt that people who spend three years living on a combination of their parent’s money and the state while they get their bachelor of arts in gender studies or bachelor of fine arts in Greek vases for less than three thousand pounds a year are going to find much sympathy amongst the people who work on the farms or in the factories or workshops that pay the taxes that support their lifestyle, either.

Hell, I was talking about this with my co-workers on yesterday, most of whom have only a technical education or no higher education at all. They felt the same way I did, if not stronger.

[nerdanel]

Like the British Law Lords (on human rights), I usually write my own posts even if someone else has already said everything I want to say , just for the satisfaction of putting it into my own words - but this time, I'll say that I wholeheartedly endorse the main themes of L_M's above post, and add only a couple of paragraphs.

First: I, too, have a liberal arts undergraduate degree, and I think it was very useful -- because my field of concentration, chemistry, was something that would have rendered me immediately employable after graduation, if necessary. It gave me knowledge that would have been directly relevant to contributing to society in practical ways - if I'd continued in chemistry, I'd have gone either to a research lab in organic synthesis (I wanted to work on anti-cancer drugs) or I'd have gone into the pharmaceutical industry. With that as my principal focus, I think it was perfectly useful to be required to take courses in British literature, linguistics, American history, eschatology, international relations, and music as useful, background "color" to the degree. I think I'd have lost something if I'd been in a UK-style program that gave me three undergraduate years of *only* chemistry (and other natural sciences). But if I'd spent 3-4 years getting an "arts" degree in a subject that, however interesting, is simply not employable ... that would not have been a good use of my time/money (unless I was one of the rare students both committed to getting a doctorate, and talented enough to be academically employable post-doctorate). And it sure as heck would not have delivered any results justifying societal subsidies of that degree.

Second: L_M's argument with which I'm agreeing is a different point than I was making individually. My central point about these tuition raises is this: in an economy that cannot afford to provide subsidies for all, people should be charged up to the full value of their degree in accordance with their ability to pay (which may, via loans, also factor in their ability to repay). This has nothing to do with the employability or other social utility of their program of study - for me, L_M's point is secondary.

Third, as for eborr's comment on law: I disagree with the practice of allowing people who have not formally studied law to practice it after some practical training. Although that practice is rare in the United States, it exists both in Virginia and California. I'm rather sorry to discover it here as well. Society benefits little when attorneys do not have a solid theoretical grasp of their legal system (as taught in school), to complement the practical skills they'll learn post-graduation. Anyone who doesn't believe this would be well-advised to suffer through a few days' worth of reading the "briefs" and "motions" filed in litigation by people who haven't attended law school.

Finally, the one part of L_M's post I'm not ready to endorse is the idea that students who will ultimately seek doctorates in the arts should not be studying their subject as undergrads. That seems rather extreme. (It's actually particularly ironic in view of your claim that law should *not* be a post-graduate-only degree.)

[Túrin Turambar]

Finally, the one part of L_M's post I'm not ready to endorse is the idea that students who will ultimately seek doctorates in the arts should not be studying their subject as undergrads. That seems rather extreme. (It's actually particularly ironic in view of your claim that law should *not* be a post-graduate-only degree.)

I don’t believe that only people studying doctorates in the arts should study arts, but I do believe that only students who have a reason to study arts should study arts. Arts is a very easy field to get into. You’re in your final year of high school, you’re good at English and History, you have no idea what you want to do as a career, but you must go to university. That describes an awful lot of students, and an awful lot of them enrol in arts. When I picked the law/arts degree I know that I was thinking with a high school mindset – picking subjects that interested me and that I thought I could get good grades in rather than thinking about graduate employment. But in my defence, I was only sixteen (in Queensland, we graduate from high school in the year we turn seventeen. Graduation is in November and my birthday is in December, so I’m one of the ten percent or so of students who finished high school at sixteen).

Over the course of their study, a lot of arts students came to change their mindset. One of my friends switched from general arts to law/criminology after one year. I know another guy who switched from arts to law/arts after two years. Two postgrad students I knew well had enrolled in straight law after graduating with arts degrees in international relations and being unable to find work (and they were smart guys with good grades). I eventually discovered that I was only employable, if I was employable at all, as a trainee solicitor. The law degree offered nothing near the flexibility that I was promised. And once I decided not to practice law, virtually all graduate employment opportunities were closed to me save the military, which I was found medically unfit for.

So essentially neither society nor me as an individual gained anything from the money spent on my arts degree. Australian taxpayers are no better off having lent me that money and subsidised my education, and I’m no better off for taking the loan. I think that higher education should be planned better to give both taxpayers and the individuals taking it better value. And I believe that limiting arts programs to a) numbers that are actually needed and b) people who have the aptitude and willingness to fill those positions may be a good thing.

[eborr]

This is the sales pitch for Liberal Arts, but I’m coming to find it more and more suspect. And I’m not speaking from ignorance here, as I have an Arts degree myself. Griffith University doesn’t offer straight law degrees to undergraduates,

No it wasn't a sales pitch if that was the case I would have done a far more persuasive job, looking at overall value to the economy ect, however to address your point explicitly, you may have an arts degree from a specific academic institution, therefore your knowledge maybe restricted to that institution, I know very little about Australian Uni's so I cannot comment on the quality of teaching or otherwise, save that my Greek history tutor, ended up as a vice chancellor in one of them, Monash I think, a fine man and a real hero on the beer.

All I will say is in a professional life that has been primarily in a technology industry, many of the very best people have come from an arts background, especially those working areas such as programme management, change management and consulting, they are inavariably more successful than those who had a specific business training.


Cleary the experience at Griffin University was different from mine (currently sat at 10 in the English league tables) and my sons at Oxford.

In the good Universities the subject areas that consistently demand the most stringent entry requirements are the liberal arts (with the exception of Medical and Vertinary Science).

And just to build on what Tosh said, many people would regard England as having a high tax economy, and one of the benefits of that was that if you put the money in you now got something out. For example my Dad worked and paid taxes all his working life, he knew one of the benefits of his paying taxes was that his sons would all be able to go to University without incurring debt. Unlike my dad for much of my working life I have been a higher rate tax payer, but my boys will have to pay for themselves. I personally don't give a monkeys about people who moan about their taxes going towards higher education, generally the people who make those noises come from two groups, they are either the very rich such as Cameron and Clegg, who had to pay even in the good old days, or they a people with a chip on their shoulder who are either too stupid or too lazy to marticulate. It was very intersting this morning the Beeb who at the moment are trying very hard to be right wing attempted to do a vox-pop at a building site to get the sort of red-kneck type feedback condeming student protesters, what they actually got was a painter with a strong Afro-Caribbean accent condemming the Govt policy because he had three children and he saw their future prospects being dimmed/

I understand the US experience is different, where you have a low tax economy and many of the richer folk have a similar attitude to private giving as our some of our more well off people had here in Victorian times. Under those circumstances I can see that there is a ethical and equitable stance that you can take, but our experience is different.

[Aravar]

.

Third, as for eborr's comment on law: I disagree with the practice of allowing people who have not formally studied law to practice it after some practical training. Although that practice is rare in the United States, it exists both in Virginia and California. I'm rather sorry to discover it here as well. Society benefits little when attorneys do not have a solid theoretical grasp of their legal system (as taught in school), to complement the practical skills they'll learn post-graduation. Anyone who doesn't believe this would be well-advised to suffer through a few days' worth of reading the "briefs" and "motions" filed in litigation by people who haven't attended law school.

You can't practice law without having formally studied it. If you don't have a law degree you have to study for the Post-Graduate Diploma in LAw for one year. There is then the year's professional qualificaiton course either as a solicitor or a barrister, and following that either a year's pupillage at the bar or two years of a training contract (formerly articles) as a solicitor.

While it's true that people come to the bar who have not done law degrees, it is not particulary common. Only about one tenth of my colleagues have non-law degrees.

[eborr]

Some of you may know that the Lib-Dems made much noise about the improper claims some MPS made on expences. Unfortunately they were not as clean as they might have been, for example Mr Clegg purchased and furnished a home in his constituency, at a cost to the tax payer of 84,000. He promised that on selling the house all profits would be given to the tax payer, he paid 275,000 for the house and sold it for er 250,000.

Next we move onto David Laws, appointed as First Secretary to the Treasury and one of the prime architects of the cooalition. Within weeks Laws whose prime role was to implement cuts and restore fiscal responsibility was proven to been very effecient with his own fiscal responsibility. MP's with constituencies outside of London are permitted to rent property, there are some exclusions, principly they may not pay rent to a spouse or partner. Laws was found to be paying claiming rent for the use of a room in his boy-friends house, naturally being a Lib-Dem he rounded on his accusers on grounds of homo-phobia, rather than owning up to having made illeagal claims to the tune of 40,000 ukp

His successor Danny Alexander is a man of even less intrgrity

"Mr Alexander admitted that he took advantage of a loophole to legally avoid paying CGT on the sale of the south London property for £300,000 in June 2007. " Daily Telegraph 30.5.2010

Given that CGT at the time was 40% Alexander aka ginger rat, robbed the tax payers of 120,000.

I am sure that the poor 16-19 year olds, from whom Alexander is taking away their 30 per week will congratulate him on his financial acumen

[Aravar]

Some of you may know that the Lib-Dems made much noise about the improper claims some MPS made on expences. Unfortunately they were not as clean as they might have been, for example Mr Clegg purchased and furnished a home in his constituency, at a cost to the tax payer of 84,000. He promised that on selling the house all profits would be given to the tax payer, he paid 275,000 for the house and sold it for er 250,000.

I'm no LibDem fan, but the sale at less than purchase price is likley to be a reflection of the downturn in the housing market, rahter than an attempt to stop the taxpayer receiving the profits.

His successor Danny Alexander is a man of even less intrgrity

"Mr Alexander admitted that he took advantage of a loophole to legally avoid paying CGT on the sale of the south London property for £300,000 in June 2007. " Daily Telegraph 30.5.2010

Given that CGT at the time was 40% Alexander aka ginger rat, robbed the tax payers of 120,000.

First it is likely that the "CGT loophole" is simply the fact that if one has more than one house one can nominate one as one's principal private residence, which is a relief everyone takes advantage of. It means selling your house is CGT free.

Second it is a tax on capital gains, so unless he bought the property for £0, the gain wouldn't be £300,000. The tax is payable on the difference between the purchase and the sale price. If for example it had been bought for £150,000 the gain would be £150,000. In 07/08 the first £9200 of gains were tax free anyway.

Gains in 07-08 were also subject to taper relief of 5% per year to a maximum of 40%. So using the hypothetical £150,000, if that had been owned for 8 years the chargeable gain would be £90,000. after taking into acocunt the personal allowance the tax would be payable on £80,800, giving tax of £32,320.

[eborr]

2 Issues here, the thing about Alexander is that he "switched" houses. MP's had the right to nominate a house as a "second home". The second home could be in the constistuency or it could be in London. It was on the second home that the expences in respect of upkeep and mortgage assistance and CGT relief could be taken.

It was the case with a number of MP Alexander and Senior Party labour figure Hazel Blear being the most notorious that the houses would be switched. EG house A the larger has the highest mortgage payments the most council tax the hightest bills, so we make that our second home, times passes house b is the one with the most equity, we need to make some cash we switch the house, thus house b becomes the second home. We can use money from Parliament to make improvements to the second home to add value, we sell the house, trouser the profit without CGT, perhaps buy something cheaper, maybe without a mortgage, and then switch houses again with the tax payer paying the mortgage.

This kind of considered abuse was I believe one of the actions that the police and the DPP considered as a potential criminal act, but decided not to proceed, on the grounds that it was not against the law, even though it was compltely against the principle on which the legisllation that he been established, to enable those MP's who do not have a private income to function in both their constituency and in Parliament.

It may well be the case that one is allowed to nominate the principle place of residence without a check, in the case of most people this is a relatively simple, and it may well be that a number of rich people do use it to screw the rest of us who pay our taxes, however one does not expect parliamentarians who ought to have some form of integrity not to systematically abuse the system as in Blears and Alexanders case for purely personal gain.

Mr Alexander, who was appointed on Saturday after the resignation of fellow Liberal Democrat David Laws, designated the property as his second home for the purpose of claiming parliamentary expenses but described it to HM Revenue and Customs as his main home.

Last night Mr Alexander admitted that he took advantage of a loophole to legally avoid paying CGT on the sale of the south London property for £300,000 in June 2007.

Daily Telegraph

You are of course correct in the level of the money obtained, my error.

When we talk about Clegg, here we need to question his judgement and his use of tax payers money in his constituency home. Whilst it is clear that his nomination of his Sheffield home as his second home is entirely correct, what one has to question is why when it was clear that the housing market was in a downturn, was he investing large amounts of public money in improving the property. If the home was a second home why did he need to buy a large property in one of the towns more expensive districts, surely - I realise that he has a family, but as the family home is a large and agreeable property in Putney (value in excess of 1 million pounds) how much time did his family spend in the consituency. It would seem to me that the expenditure of money on the home was an attempt to protect his investment, to ensure that he made the most money he could when he needed to sell.

As with the case of Alexander, we see a nastly little man on the make.

And talking about another little man on the make

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12045792

Some Lib-Dems apologists will no doubt say that this is a good example of the positive benefit the Lib-Dems are having on the tories, Given that the "wins" that the Lib-Dems have are meaningingless -EG they have secured more money for poor children they trumpet(er yes only by taking it away from other poor children)

[eborr]

Following on from Cables indescretion, apart from being publically humiliated, Cable has had the decision of allowing a complete take over of Sky by News International taken away from his control.

Now it's being put in the hands of the Murdoch friendly media Jeremy Hunt.

It would seem now that we are allowing the interests of one man and his dynasty to gain even more control over our media. So much for a free press.

[eborr]

Just an update, it seems that the Daily Telegraph had been undertaking a campaign posing as constituents and ringing up Lib-Dem ministers for guidance and advice. Almost to a man they were denigrating their coalition partners, not only in terms of policy but also personally. They all admitted to problems with Govt. policy but said they had to go along with it. The big questions is WHY. Given that almost none of their election promises has had an effect on the Tory agenda when has to conclude that they quite fancied the trappings of power, and the money and perks that goes along with it.

Of course the Lib-Dems have form in this area, ie saying one thing to constituents and another to their Tory partners - viz the Tuition Fees.

The conclusion that one if forced to draw is that they people without any shred of integrity or honour.

[elfshadow]

eborr, back to an earlier topic, could you explain more about MPs getting mortgage help with second homes? It seems a little counterintuitive that politicians could get funding on a secondary residence but not their primary residence. Do you know what the rationale was behind starting this policy? As your examples show, it seems to be a system that can be easily abused.

[Hachimitsu]

From reading what Eborr said, funding is for the second residence, because the second residence is what is needed to be able to work in London. Ex: If some MP had a home far north and could not be near London, they have to buy a second residence to work in London. Since the second residence is what is needed to complete their work, that is what they get the assistance for. It's a work expense, while a main home isn't a work expense.

There are a few debates in Canada about politicians making their expenses viewable to the public.

[eborr]

Just to build on what Wilma said, the principle of the second residence was established so that mp who whose constituencies were away from London not rich could afford to function. Previously the only way that working class members could afford to sit was through Trade Union support. Overall a good measure. What went wrong as things so often did was that during the Thatcher era mp salary was kept low, the whole austerity trip. So to make up mp were encouraged to take full advantage of the possibilities offered by the expenses. Similarly civil servants were told to be accomodating in their scrutiny. The whole thing became absurd under Blairs govt. with the consequence some mps will end up in jail

[eborr]

deep joy in the recent by election that was generated because the liberals winged about malpractice, the labour majority has increased by over 3000, the conservative vote was destroyed due to tories switching to tactically vote for the liberal, still not enough. The deluded Clegg is trying to portray this as some kind of victory for the party.

Oldham is not a typical labour city as it includes quite large rural community on it's eastern side, which of course is traditionally conservative.

It's an indication to Cameron and Clegg that the choices that they have made are not those which chime with the voters of Oldham.

For the next by election in Barnsley, we may well see a co-alition candidate which will be the death-knell of the liberals, in less than a year, Clegg will have managed to destroy two hundred years of political tradition.

[Túrin Turambar]

In a speech in Germany, David Cameron has announced that multiculturalism has failed. Throughout Europe, there has been a move against multiculturalism and towards integration of late, although this is, as far as I recall, the first explicit statement against it by a U.K. Prime Minister.

Unfortunately for him, his remarks co-incided with a march by the English Defence League, and he probably didn’t want the two stories connected. A number of Muslim leaders have accused him of double standards, by targeting immigrant extremists while ignoring native ones.

Specifically, Cameron said that the British Government should not engage with or support organisations that do not support liberal democratic values, and that people should be held to the same standards with regards to racist or violent remarks. On this I happen to strongly agree with him, and think that this basic message should not be lost under the unfounded presumption that he’s pushing some sort of far-right agenda or has some other sinister motive. When I was at university it was very difficult to say what Cameron said because critics of that position would never take those sorts of comments at face value, and I see no reason not to have this debate.

[nerdanel]

Yes, I was reading about that this morning. Per the NYT, for me, the most encouraging part of Cameron's remarks was his promise to "stop[] Muslim groups that propagate views hostile to values of gender equality, democracy and human rights 'from reaching people in publicly funded institutions like universities and prisons.'" I am very much a proponent of a substantive liberalism - what Cameron called "muscular liberalism" - rather than a procedural, non-judgmental liberalism. The latter has the potential to enable the propagation of worldviews that would destroy liberal secular democracy.

I'm sure the U.S. government will welcome Cameron's remarks, to the extent that it has long felt that the U.K. is host to suspected terrorists that threaten American national interests. Of course, the U.K.'s hands, to some extent, are tied by the ECHR Article 3 guarantee not to remove non-nationals who might face torture or inhumane/degrading treatment in the country of origin. My own attitude towards Cameron's remarks is one of cautious acceptance. I think he has started a dialogue that needs to occur and that he has made some good points. On the other hand, the resulting "dialogue" will inevitably continue the escalation of the unease between Britain's Muslim and non-Muslim residents. I suppose I feel concerned for western Muslims whose worldview is quite compatible with liberal secular democracy; for them, these are trying times, whether in the U.K., U.S., or elsewhere in Europe.

I'm sure I'll have more thoughts on this after next week's int'l human rights law seminar, which conveniently deals with multiculturalism. This week's (Monday's) seminar will deal with democracy and self-determination. Although our course schedule was laid out months ago, I can't help but marvel at the coincidental timing, most particularly re: Tunisia and Egypt, but also now with respect to Cameron's remarks.

[Túrin Turambar]

And on to something a little less weighty, the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons is in the centre of a controversy after she agreed to pose in a bedsheet for the The Evening Standard and give an interview describing their sex life – Our bedroom secrets by Sally Bercow - 'Becoming Speaker has turned my husband into a sex symbol'.

This raises a few questions in my mind, the largest of which is probably: how is there enough of a demand for the scoop on the Speaker’s sex life for this to get sold in the first place?

[axordil]

For some reason all I can think of when I see that story is the old Monty Python sketch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc

[eborr]

The multicultural risk thing has been hinted at by a number of new labour politicians including Bliar and Straw, so the only remarkable thing is that he said it overseas. Of course it's a more prominent statement as it does come from a party of the right, that in the past had been a home to those with racist opinions.

There are a number of reasons that Cameron needs to make a noise at the moment, not least of which is there dire handling of the economy which is leading us into a double-dip followed by a belly flip.

oh Mrs Bercow, some might say silly old moo to quote a prominent racist and Thatcher supporter of the 70's. This is a storm in a teacup probably set up by her husbands establishment enemies.

Bercow is/was a maverick tory, disliked by many in his party when he was an active member, disliked by many more when he became chancellor. There has been a row growing over Mrs Bercows political ambitions, which at a superficial level is sexist at best, but again, those people who are agitating against are mainly the enemies of Bercow.

Fact there is nothing in our constitution or precedent which prevents the spouse of the speaker seeking or achieving political office