Labour Leadership 2016

chaff of Oxbridge spads

The inverted snobbery towards any form of achievment percieved as "establishment" is growing a bit tired.

Yes, the majority of the people outside metropolitan areas have just days ago signalled that they'd like a career politician who entered party politics from Oxbridge, preferably one who dresses very sharply and occasionally posts derogatory comments about povvo's on social media.

Who's that?

Angela Eagle innit?

Pro tuition fee, pro Iraq war, Oxford educated, national chess champion Angela Eagle. The one with a twin sister also in parliament.

Everything that the electorate has just rejected.

The electorate will reject what the PLP tell them to reject.

dresses very sharply and occasionally posts derogatory comments about povvo's on social media.

Sure. BTW, after the removal of tuition fees in Scotland, the number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds applying to university dropped dramatically. In England it has actually encouraged a wider range of people to sign up. Tuition fees have increased social mobility.

Good to stay informed though. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10182/angela_eagle/wallasey/votes?gclid=Cj0KEQjwncO7BRC06snzrdSJyKEBEiQAsUaRjMPmKQktnN0UEuYiluAAQJFufxpVg-14Yf2jvz35dPgaAnti8P8HAQ

https://twitter.com/UKGE2020/status/747101136092540929

Not wanting to get off topic, but this makes me totally twitch. You don't think fees putting almost every graduate into massive debt are problematic? And btw the gov white paper has just lifted the £9k cap. I really don't think the 3 things you link: tuition fees, applications to university and social mobility, are so simply connected.

In England it has actually encouraged a wider range of people to sign up. Tuition fees have increased social mobility.>

Yes, the debt is very problematic. It is also true that before fees, top universities were struggling to recruit from outside of the usual middle class, often privately educated elite. Fees are one solution, though a very flawed one. A better solution wasn't put on the table. perhaps someone should come up with one. And yes, I think the connection is simple: "I can get a loan to afford this now, so I'll go".

I don't expect anyone on here to agree with this, so I'll accept in advance that these views make me an evil tory, and we can get back to the leadership discussion :)

Angela Eagle innit?

Pro tuition fee, pro Iraq war, Oxford educated, national chess champion Angela Eagle. The one with a twin sister also in parliament.

Everything that the electorate has just rejected.

Labour still haven't got a clue. People turned away from Labour because they abandoned them.
The grassroots then elect a leader who actually has policies that benefit working class people, only for them to be shouted down by the PLP.

If Corbyn doesn't survive the back stabbing by the PLP, another pro-austerity anti-immigration ex-policy wonk/SPOD will get elected and the grassroots will desert

1) The PLP have made his position untenable. This doesn't mean people don't want him as leader, but don't see a way for him moving forward. That's fucked.
2) 37% of Labour voters say he shouldn't.
3) That makes him more popular than any other candidate (if we take the "impressive" question as a proxy).

A leadership contest needs to happen quickly.

Yes, the debt is very problematic. It is also true that before fees, top universities were struggling to recruit from outside of the usual middle class, often privately educated elite. Fees are one solution, though a very flawed one. A better solution wasn't put on the table. perhaps someone should come up with one. And yes, I think the connection is simple: "I can get a loan to afford this now, so I'll go".

What does this even mean?

Top universities weren't able to recruit from outside the privately educated middle classes so fees were raised? Huh?

I think it means one or two things:-

a) Universities used to fill up their places from the middle classes. When fees came in fewer of them went, so there were more spaces for others. So it helped diversity indirectly.

b) The fees (and loans to cover them) coincided with an increase in the amount students could borrow to cover their living expenses, which meant that those without the savings (or help from parents) could now afford (by borrowing) to go to University.

But that's just my guess.

It's confusing, but it is happening.

"18 year-olds from disadvantaged areas reached their highest ever application rate at the end of the UCAS admissions cycle in 2014, and these gains have continued into the 2015 cycle—the January deadline application rate for this group was also at a record high."

https://fullfact.org/education/have-governments-tuition-fee-reforms-worked/

Like I said, I'm not comfortable with the debt culture either, but I dont think the fees question is black and white.

This is great news, but how is it linked to fees.

And yes, I think the connection is simple: "I can get a loan to afford this now, so I'll go".

If there are no fees, you don't need a loan. If there are significantly lower fees you have significantly lower debt. You are talking about fees, not maintenance? The marketisation and corporatisation of higher education is unchecked. It's not a Tory thing, I don't think many people forget who brought fees in.

None of that was even the over simple stuff. Access to university is now broader than it was before fees - it's not necessarily directly causal. A lot else has also changed. There are also still nuances in who feels able to apply and who doesn't. There are also nuances in who benefits as graduates, and who doesn't, and how much of this is related to fees/debt or not.

Not the place, but i can't pass by an assertion that university fees = social mobility, yay fees.

No.

I'm for Corbyn to stay. He restored my confidence in Labour and I can't say the alternatives can hold that. I'll probably go back to voting Greens without Corbyn.

I dont think the fees question is black and white.

Yes, this! Ffs. I have stuff to do.

I think you're making a very blatant "correlation does not equal causation" error.

My experience was, coming from a very disadvantaged area and when I was at school and experiencing a shitty home life; The message I was getting from colleges and uni's was that only the clever people enrolled at them.

Due to shitty home life and bullying my grades were shite and so college and uni 'was never an option' in my mind. I've now got a masters degree and doing OK in life. When I talk to my peers who I grew up with, we all say the same 'we were classed as under achievers', so the college/uni route simply wasn't explored during our career advisor 1:1 sessions.

Things in my area have changed massively, it's now a case of 'no child left behind', attitude. My son is on the ASD scale, thanks to this new 'can do' attitude he now has a nursing degree and doing well at work.

So personally I think it's the 'can do' attitude that has helped 'under achievers' where I live.
Who has driven this change or why I've no idea, but I'm fucking glad they did and I'm guessing this has happened in other disadvantaged areas aswell, hence the increase in applications from 'disadvantaged' students.

NB:
I fucking hate the term 'disadvantaged students', it makes a mockery of the intelligence of the students and sets them aside from others.

Not quite. The middle classes still go. University places have increased dramatically and everyone is trying to sell sell sell their places to any teenager that looks their way. More positively there have been big campaigns to recruit more broadly, and all the government talk of getting 50% young people into HE did after all have some effect. Uni is almost a default choice among a much bigger section of society now. Students are also much more used to working regular jobs through study to pay their way. Obviously these things have both positive and negative impacts.

Indeed, it's interesting seeing what is happening amongst my nieces/nephews, some are approaching Uni age (the eldest is awaiting her results to see if she has got her place). Seems vastly different in approach/attitude than it did for me/friends 20+ years ago (although my sixth form college had a very rarefied atmosphere).

I think you're making a very blatant "correlation does not equal causation" error.

Yes, that's possible. However if the introduction of fees had been followed by a reduction in "disadvantaged students" applying, I doubt you'd still assert there was no correlation. I'm not crying "Yay for fees" as @hoefla said. I'd like Angela Eagle to be challenged on her vote for fees if she's part of a leadership campaign.

Of course, because that would look like something that may have a statistical relationship!

It's entirely possible that there are fewer people from particular backgrounds going to university than there would have been without the raise in fees. That the uptake we have seen is due to other, more reasonable, explanations.

What is unlikely is that a increase in cost would result in more people with less money going. Unless there is something key (a variable) which I'm missing.