Lucy Powell - Shadow Culture Secretary, traditionally the cabinet dunce - on the radio this morning talking about 'making computer science more attractive to girls' and complaining that it's because it's too theory heavy. My eldest girl is a computer science graduate, youngest is starting her second year. It's a science. You have to know why and how things work. What she wants is to make it artificially easier to allow people who can't be arsed doing the hard bit get the degree and then potentially jobs where their lack of theoretical foundation could be costly. Do you want the AI controlling your car or aircraft being programmed or maintained by someone who can do the physical task but has no idea how the machine works and can't fix it in the event something goes wrong? But that's alright, because we've now got more girls doing it This is a perfect example of being careful what you wish for in politics.
And food inflation coming down. https://news.sky.com/story/supermar...-groceries-for-fourth-month-in-a-row-12922477
And they say Starmer is hamstrung by his union paymasters. This is hilarious, their infighting knows no bounds. Out of interest, is the guy standing up addressing the bent committee not the mp who they have deselected for breaking the rules?
Not at all. Income remains static (per student) but costs increase, every year in the lead up to covid and after. Wages increase, other operating costs increase. More importantly capital investment has to be maintained on buildings, it, labs etc. Universities do not aim for a recurring surplus each year. They aim for a steady surplus in case of a surprise event, i.e. covid. Brexit has had an impact to on research grant funding. I dare say Russel group universities make up a disproportionate amount the overall sector surplus, if donations are accounted for. Look at it another way. In 2015 it was calculated the average cost of teaching a student for 1 year was just under £9k allowing for a re-investment surplus. In 2023 the underlying assumption is the cost has not changed. I think everyone knows it has gone up. This suggestion that universities are making money just doesnt stand up in my opinion. That doesnt mean some arent coping well, but a lot are not. There have been govt bailouts. That is not what anybody wants. I would argue Sunak is right to target low value courses. I would also argue for higher tuition fees on courses where the costs are higher. More surpluses will equate to highed quality education outcomes, ideally for those courses producing graduates the country needs.
I had a chuckle today when Blair told Starmer he will inherit an economic situation more grim than he inherited. No mention of the position Labour left behind in between. Seems Starmer is warming everyone up for minimal investment or spending (other than more on HS2), without any sense of what will be in its place, other than we will better. Lots coming in term 2 apparently. Seems like one or two in his party are getting agitated with his low bar politics. The media is starting to call him out on policy, or rather lack of it, rightly. Sitting next to Blair seems a bit desperate to me, surely we dont need a throw back to that era. Labour have a chance to back up their accusations that austerity is no use and you should spend your way to a growing economy. I predict a power struggle ahead for them. Burnham and the labour mayors are already circling. He needs to come out soon with something to believe in, or he may snatch a miserable majority when it should be a landslide. Not losing is not the same as winning an election, in my opinion anyway. A bit of hope is what we want, a hope they arent as hopeless as this lot is not the hope we need. There are ways to free up money, but it takes brave leaders to do it. He seems distinctly lacking to me so far.
There was a lot I didn’t like about Blair but it was unregulated capital markets that crashed the economy (as it did again recently) not their spending. That is a fact that was distorted.
Starmer upsetting a few, well I never. Playing the straight bat against the tories all talk and no substance. Time for change. Starmer will be a good leader, no bluff or lies.
You have to be capable of stirring an emotion in people to upset them. He's had a spectacularly easy ride from the public so far. That will change.
And inflation coming down. Down to 7.9 from 8.7. The target/pledge/promise is 5 by the end of the year, which in politics speak 5.99999 will count https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-66231510
Are Labour seriously on the verge of another civil war over a policy as broadly popular with the electorate as the two child benefit cap? In a world of three word slogans, they've gone for 'hold my beer'
Taxpayers funding two kids free of charge is very generous. I don't think it's particularly heartless to say if you have more than that in the expectation that the state will pay for them, it's no deal.
It would cost only £1.3bn to lift 850,000 kids out of deep poverty according to one analysis I read. It needs sorting now in my opinion. Tories and Labour saying it is too expensive are both wrong on this. The lasting effect is unthinkable.
Is that to pay for schemes/ initiatives/ investments? Just if it’s a handout, it’s saying give £1530 to each child . That’s fine for the moment til £1530 spent , then everyone’s back to square one
Of course not to forget that in 50 years time rail travel will most likely be obsolete as the age of the hyperloop is coming and will probably be here sooner rather than later. Again our leaders are thinking ahead with this one and future proofing our country to keep us at the forefront of modern technology
It is the cost per year of removing the cap I believe. It will be the cost of reinstating child benefit for all kids in a family.
