What's your point? Do you mean: 1 All university chancellors are left wing? 2 Only left wing chancellors charge astronomical fees? 3 Only left wing chancellors should wear sack cloth and ashes while their right wing colleagues are free to take what they can get.
I believe he means: 1. An administrator (of any level) in an organisation should not be paid £400,000 a year 2. That's a major reason why going through university s a very expensive thing 3. Generally speaking, Universities have been hot-beds of left-wing politics for decades Whilst there's no solid evidence to suggest that there's a link between the first two and the third one, it kinda makes you wonder why a traditionally labour-supporting, socialist environment like a British university supports such exorbitantly high salaries. I guess that it gives the impression of champagne socialism in the heart of higher education...
Well said guys. Two plus two always makes six but who cares about that. Just add in an assumption and a political prejudice and you can get away with any old cobblers and portray it to the world as fact. Found any more reds under your bed recently Goldie?
Legally, universities are private sector businesses. They are no more part of the state than Eton is - and never were. They compete with each other for the best students. They compete to get enough students to fill their courses and employ their staff. The senior level people that run universities are running service sector businesses, responsible for large budgets and rather more than admin staff. The political views of senior university management are likely to be as varied as any other big business and just as irrelevant to anything the university does. I still don't get the idea that it's acceptable to expect all socialists to walk around in sackcloth and ashes, and that it's a valid form political attack when they do not. But, when your political views result in actions being taken that are quite damaging to ordinary people, but not for those who can protect themselves, the best you can hope for is to rubbish the moral position of others to defend your own, I guess. I also still don't understand why people with nothing would vote for a government that has policies which will keep it that way and deny their children the chance to improve their lot.
It's the left wing academics on these unjustifiedly high salaries that complain the loudest about austerity and student fees. Students are waking up to the fact that they don't get value for money, with scarce lectures and tutorials. These chancellors are fat cats that wouldn't fit under my bed, Yorks.
You're taking the Corbyn line, which has been disproved: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-wrong-on-working-class-students Labour brought in the tuition fees. The Tories and the Lib Dems (who, like Corbyn in the last election, never thought they'd get anywhere near government, promised the undeliverable and then U-turned) continued the policy. Those working class youngsters that don't go to university should not subsidise those that do. However, at present, the interest rate charged on student loans is way over market rates, and that has to be brought down. The government should give them a favourable rate.
I'd be more impressed if you'd agreed with my first two paragraphs and made a comment on my third. I've no idea if my fourth paragraph is taking the Corbyn line or not. I'm not a follower of Corbyn. Nor am I a Labour supporter - even though I did vote Labour last time in my true blue constituency. What I do know is current Conservative policies are making things worse for ordinary people and the choices they're asking us to support are not in the interests of many ordinary people - but they vote for them anyway. And I don't understand why. As you already know, I'm on record as saying that everyone in the country benefits from graduates in certain disciplines (as an example, doctors, nurses, dentists, engineers). Working class youngsters who are lucky enough to have a job earning enough that requires them to pay tax (not that many out of the total, I suspect) should contribute towards our subsidy of those university places so everyone - including smart-yet-poor working class youngsters - have a chance to go to university, better themselves and benefit us all. At the time I said it, I believe you agreed with me. I agree with you 100% regarding the interest rates being charged on student loans. But, as I believe in equal opportunity for all, regardless of their income and family background, I would, wouldn't I? What I don't understand is why other ordinary people are so happy to deny their children those opportunities.
how many people go to university per year doctors/nurses and useful students should get the courses for free as long as they commit to working in the uk for a set amount of time
I couldn't care less about the politics of university administrators, but there is clearly something seriously wrong with our university system and what these people are paid is indicative of it. Lots of stuff in the Sunday Times today about universities taking foreign students, including those with poor qualifications and grasp of English, because non EU students pay three times more than UK and EU ones. Once we leave the EU they will be able to charge higher fees for EU students as well. The prestigious university local to me, Warwick, has seen a 28% drop (over 4500) in the number of British students it takes since 2008. It's a ****ing disgrace.
Dealing with those paragraphs of your earlier post then, the universities may be in competition, but it's misleading to call them private sector businesses. They're charities and they rely on taxpayers money, whether directly or indirectly. The Sunday Times articles that Stan mentioned has more on this. I don't have a problem with someone espousing left wing principles going into business and making money for themselves, paying taxes, perhaps exporting overseas and employing others etc. Good for them. What I have a problem is the hypocrisy of senior left wing academics panning the capitalist system and then ripping off students and taxpayers by awarding themselves obscene salaries that would not be justified in the private sector.
Agree the foreign-student-buying-unearned-places is a scandal. There seems to be a lack of regulation in the university sector. Needs to change.
And? As long as they pay their taxes why do we obsess about what 100 people earn? Will cutting their renumeration lead to poorly paid people getting more? If their companies' shareholders think these people offer poor value, they will cut their pay. If reducing the pay of a FTSE 100 CEO will mean nurses, policemen, shop assistants etc will be paid more, great, do it. But I don't think it will, just politics of envy stuff. And actually bad for public sector workers at least. FTSE 100 firms have seen their share prices rocket because most earn their profits overseas and the fall in £ has helped. So the tax paid on a £5m wedge (probably over £2m) is mostly foreign money, not recycled British money. It's genuine new wealth to the UK. Cut the wedge, you reduce the tax take. The profit is distributed to shareholders instead, and the big ones are (often non UK) investment funds. I think 'inequality' is a red herring, but an easy target for both May and Labour. Equality of opportunity is essential - especially in education and health - and we have plenty of work to do here (by raising the base, not lowering the top standards) and tackling absolute poverty and low pay. Tax the rich and uber rich more by all means, but stigmatising people because they are rich won't end well.
Anybody on the left, or the right for that matter, who belies that it is wrong or hypocritical to try to earn as much as you can is misguided to say the least. What matters is equality of opportunity not equality in wages. We don't all have the same levels of skill or ambition.
So you're fine with the cost of higher education then? and it being necessarily passed on to those who choose to go to University paying for it? Because if you're fine with a glorified bursar getting upwards of £400k a year, then clearly you're also fine with students - or taxpayers - bearing that cost. Strange that this view appears to be completely at odds with your other posts about this subject...
You're reading too much into it. The post was generic rather than specific about University chancellors. Pity both you and my no.1 fan missed that.
