The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[The Esk]

Ed's final letter of the campaign, he's really got into personalisation.....

the esk,

As I write this, Justine and I are on our last trip on the Labour campaign bus. We're heading back from an incredible supporter rally in Leeds to Doncaster so we can vote there first thing tomorrow morning.

So while I have this rare, quiet moment, I want to say this: thank you.

I am so proud to have fought this campaign alongside you. If our country votes for a Labour government tomorrow, it will be because of the dedication, passion and generosity of hundreds of thousands of people like you.

This truly grassroots-powered campaign has been unlike anything I've experienced in politics before. Meeting so many of you — and seeing first-hand your enthusiasm and energy for our vision of a better, fairer, more equal Britain — has been the biggest joy for me of the last six weeks.

So whatever the outcome tomorrow, I want now to celebrate and recognise the historic things we've already achieved together: the most conversations ever had with voters, the most small donations to an election campaign, the most volunteers.

I know that the vision we have spread across Britain — friend-by-friend, house-by-house, street-by-street — is one that can deliver real change for our country. It is a vision that can make lives better for millions of people, now and for generations to come.

So, as you cast your vote tomorrow, remember who we are fighting this election for: the millions who work so hard every single day but still can't make ends meet; the hundreds of thousands suffering under the weight of a Bedroom Tax they cannot escape; the young people who fear life will be worse for them than it was for their parents.

We are fighting this election for all of us. And for the part you've played — and will play tomorrow— I want to thank you, Esk, from the bottom of my heart.

Here's to you, and to a brighter future for our great country.

Ed

 

[dannyboy]

But you don't have to pay it back under all circumstances though. Should you choose to spend your life working for rewards that are not financial, you may never repay. If you start earning a decent amount as a result of your degree, why shouldn't you pay something back? There is certainly an argument for other benefactors contributing to tuition fees as it's not just the individual that benefits from the degree but how to quantify who pays and how much is the tricky part.

Everybody pays back, it's called tax.

 

[Brennan]

No they wouldn't. Not if we began to offer real alternatives to university for young people.

You're acting as if other countries don't offer free university education. It can and does work.

How many countries offer free education as well as a free at the point of service health care and have a strong economy currently ?

I mean, i bet there's loads of countries that say "Why can't we offer free health care, the UK does it". It's not that simple.

 

[scratchnsurf]

They paid for it in the past. They can find a way again. It's all about priorities.

Are we a country insistent on keeping a nuclear deterrent so we can pretend that we still matter when it comes to the world super powers or do we want to invest in education, health and the general well being of the population?

They paid for it in the past when hardly anybody went to University and those that did were often more privileged than the taxpayers funding their higher education. That's not in any way 'fair' and the demographic of our society has completely changed in the meantime. Large amounts of debt are obviously intimidating but I'd rather be faced with that than be in a situation were I had worked my whole life and have a pension that is not going to support me in my old age. That's a much more relevant concern for a much larger number of people.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

How many countries offer free education as well as a free at the point of service health care and have a strong economy currently ?

'Free'? It's what we pay tax for isn't it?

 

[dannyboy]

How many countries offer free education as well as a free at the point of service health care and have a strong economy currently ?

Germany and the Scandinavian countries.

 

[daylightrobber]

Sorry, can you point me to where it mentions how changes in benefits have cost the country?

The ever-increasing gulf between rich and poor in Britain is costing the economy more than £39bn a year, according to a report by the Equality Trust thinktank. The effects of inequality can be measured in financial terms through its impact on health, wellbeing and crime rates, according to statisticians at the independent campaign group.

Researchers pointed to the fact that the 100 wealthiest people in the UK have as much money as the poorest 18 million – 30% of all people – and said that the consequences of such unusually high rates of inequality needed to be acknowledged by politicians.

Duncan Exley, the trust's chief executive, said economists in the US had begun taking the issue seriously but that the UK was behind the curve in understanding the full extent of the harm that could be caused by inequality. "But people are starting to talk about the gap between rich and poor as we are seeing such a chasm now. Not only are wages stagnating and austerity hitting the poor hardest but the rising stock market and soaraway rates of top pay are rocketing in the other direction."

He said there was a growing acceptance that the so-called "trickle down" of money being made by the rich was not happening. "People talk about inequality helping inspire people to work hard and try hard, but we have a situation where jobs are created but they are entry-level jobs that aren't going to go anywhere. It's like getting in at the bottom floor, but it's the bottom floor of a bungalow and there is no way to rise up. So people don't feel valued and so are not motivated."

The research finds that some of the social consequences of inequality could be worked out by calculating reduced life expectancy, poorer mental health and higher levels of crime. The £39bn is equivalent to the government's yearly spending on defence, according to the report, The Cost of Inequality.

Exley added: "We would not need to entirely eradicate inequality to see the benefits. Our estimate is based on a comparison between the level of inequality in the UK and the average level seen in developed countries. In other words, small changes to our level of income inequality would make the public purse richer, individuals healthier and the UK a more pleasant society to live in. We used to be as equal as a place like Sweden, but that has changed dramatically in the past few years. You just need to look at cities like London, where few people can afford a house because of a tiny handful of people who can afford to buy three."

Exley called on all of the political parties to have a policy on inequality, which, he said, was being overlooked as a serious economic issue, claiming a more equal UK would experience less crime and imprisonment, better mental health, higher healthy life expectancy and would be a socially and financially richer society.

The report puts the annual cost of inequality to the UK at £622 for every man, woman and child, with a total of £12.5bn lost through reduced healthy life expectancy, £25bn lost through poorer mental health, £1bn lost through increased imprisonment figures and £678m lost through an increase in murders. But it points to the incalculable extra benefits of a higher level of community cohesion, trust and social mobility associated with less unequal countries.

In a more equal UK, people could expect an extra eight and a half months of healthy life expectancy while rates of poor mental health could improve by 5%, valued at £24bn.

The wider economic cost of mental illness in England alone is estimated to be £105.2bn each year, which includes direct costs of services, lost productivity at work and reduced quality of life. The cost of poor mental health to businesses is just over £1,000 per employee per year, or almost £26bn across the UK economy. In 2008-09, the NHS spent 10.8% of its annual secondary healthcare budget on mental health services, which amounted to £10.4bn. Service costs, which include the NHS, social costs, and informal care costs, mounted to £22.5bn in 2007 in England.

"There has to be recognition by politicians, as there already is by economists, that there needs to be a targeted reduction of the gap between the richest and the poorest in order to sustain economic growth," said Exley.

Where do you want me to start.

 

[Brennan]

'Free'? It's what we pay tax for isn't it?

Not sure what you mean.

 

[scratchnsurf]

Everybody pays back, it's called tax.

So essentially you're saying raise taxes to cover tuition fees. I think lots of people would object to that for lots of reasons- what do you do when someone decides to drop out, why should we pay for people to do degrees which are of no benefit to us, why should we pay for people who can already afford it etc etc.

 

[dannyboy]

They paid for it in the past when hardly anybody went to University and those that did were often more privileged than the taxpayers funding their higher education. That's not in any way 'fair' and the demographic of our society has completely changed in the meantime. Large amounts of debt are obviously intimidating but I'd rather be faced with that than be in a situation were I had worked my whole life and have a pension that is not going to support me in my old age. That's a much more relevant concern for a much larger number of people.

All concerns are relevant in politics. A decent pension and no tuition fees are what I'd consider basic rights of any citizen.

People have different priorities/beliefs. I accept that.

 

[SNova]

Everybody pays back, it's called tax.

For me free Uni should only be free for STEMM subjects. I mean as a tax payer would you be happy for people to go study things like gender studies? What job could they get with that apart from a gender studies teacher.

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/postgraduate-courses/gender-and-womens-studies-ma/

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

Not sure what you mean.

NHS 'Free at the point of service'.

It isn't. It's paid for via taxation.

 

[dannyboy]

So essentially you're saying raise taxes to cover tuition fees. I think lots of people would object to that for lots of reasons- what do you do when someone decides to drop out, why should we pay for people to do degrees which are of no benefit to us, why should we pay for people who can already afford it etc etc.

If that person leaves university and goes onto to become a doctor/teacher or even somebody who pays a higher level of tax than they would've otherwise then it is definitely of benefit to you and the country.

 

[Jxg]

Just as an aside that is also like saying the NHS should not be treating certain conditions. E,G a mountineer is climbing , falls breaks leg needs Air Ambulance to get to Ossie. Should he get free treatment or should persons who have hazardous pastimes be required to have insurance?

Pure strawman fallacy.

The two are completely unrelated mate.

 

[peteblue]

And one from David......

Pete, hope you had a great night at the pub. Sam and I just stayed in with a decent Merlot as I can't be arsed trying to talk any sense into some of the wally's who will vote Labour no matter how they wreck the country. Anyway, I hope you and the missus will find some time to pay us a visit at number 10 during June and we can have that curry we were on about.

Best regards

Dave

...........