Student fees to hit £7000

[stokes234]

Do you agree that trade unions and professional associations are special interest groups that do not have an encompassing interest?

Yes. I agree that trade unions have their own interests, and I believe sometimes those coincide with the interests of the public. You showed a quote from Bob Crow saying that he was doing something in the interest of the public. I explained that it was indeed in the interest of the public for him to do it. The arguement needs go no further than there, unless you can show me where Bob Crow claimed to be doing it "only" in the interest of the public.

If so do you agree that their policy preferences should be qualified with this knowledge?

Yes, we should take into account, when deciding wages for public sector staff, that they want higher wages. But like I said, it's in our interest to pay them decent wages, and since you've neglected to answer my question on or where the money should be better spent, i'm forced to conclude you don't actually have a point.

Mostly correct. Concentrated special interests can better organise collectively to extract concessions from central authorities at the expense of the more diffuse whole-group, or encompassing interest.

Yes, they can. But in this case, you're refusing to say where you think the money should actually go, and so you quite clearly don't have a proper arguement against their request for higher wages.

No it doesn't imply anything about that.

Ah, I see. You brought it up for literally no reason. Fair enough.

The latter does not follow from the former. British society as we know it requires housing and private motor vehicles. These are not universally provided by the government and neither should they be.

These do not carry significant differences when controlled by the government or private sector in the same way that university courses do. Allowing free market rules to impact cars and houses doesn't neccessarily impact an individuals prospects in life, while private control of universities does, through segregation of rich and poor. Understand that I would like to see much more measures to prevent status symbols such as jaguars and mansions having an effect on prospects, but I also accept that these are not reasonably achievable goals, while public funding of university courses is a reasonable goal.

Rejected and a re-hash of covered ground. That is not "why" they are doing it; in the sense that their individual expected benefit fully covers their individual investment.

No, it isn't "why" they do it, but I see it as an arguement in favour of public funding for it.

You are asking taxpayers to do that, as argued above.

I'm asking tax payers to alleviate the problems caused by the debt aversion, not the debt aversion itself. Asking taxpayers to alleviate the debt aversion itself would involve some kind of psychological counselling or school courses, which doesn't sound particularly feasable.

Then the comment about them being "indispensable" does not really have any relevance to an argument against Browne.

As above, your "if" clauses render the solution non-serious. For that reason, I think this thread is more functional if it compares Browne to the existing system and near alternatives.

I wasn't arguing directly against Browne at that point, I was arguing in favour of public funding for universities. The options aren't just "what we have now" and "Browne's proposals", but if you're pressing me to only consider them, I put myself in the "keeping things the same and getting the money from taxes" camp.

 

[Architect]

These do not carry significant differences when controlled by the government or private sector in the same way that university courses do. Allowing free market rules to impact cars and houses doesn't neccessarily impact an individuals prospects in life, while private control of universities does, through segregation of rich and poor. Understand that I would like to see much more measures to prevent status symbols such as jaguars and mansions having an effect on prospects, but I also accept that these are not reasonably achievable goals, while public funding of university courses is a reasonable goal.

To take the transport comparison one step further, we provide subsidised public transport throughout the UK and this is primarily of assistance to the poorer members of society inasmuch as they can't afford their own cars. Stopping said services or ending the subsidy will not massively affect the middle classes particularly, but heaven help those less well-off.

And yes, I am aware of environmental arguments and the like.

 

[Francesca R]

Yes. I agree that trade unions have their own interests, and I believe sometimes those coincide with the interests of the public.

[ . . . ]

Yes, we should take into account [ . . . ]

Good. Thus concludes the whole discussion from my perspective about special interest groups and the relevance of their preferences in considering policy that affects a wider group. The RMT example was an example--I made no statement about RMT demands other than to point out they are an example of a special interest, and thus not to be considered to be in the public interest (and by that I meant not fully in the public interest), and I did not provide a quote from Bob Crow, and I won't be responding further on that. You apparently want an argument that is not there (and is off-thread IMO)

These do not carry significant differences when controlled by the government or private sector in the same way that university courses do. Allowing free market rules to impact cars and houses doesn't neccessarily impact an individuals prospects in life, while private control of universities does, through segregation of rich and poor.

Which is not the argument you were making. You said: "since british society as we know it requires university graduates, university education is a public service" and the latter does not follow from the former.

No, it isn't "why" they do it, but I see it as an arguement in favour of public funding for it.

And I see the observation that a degree is in the students' own financial interest as a reason why the public does not need to fund it (except to equalise access by paying up-front, and backstopping the risk that graduates' future earnings are on the low side of expectations)

I'm asking tax payers to alleviate the problems caused by the debt aversion, not the debt aversion itself.

The highlight is what I meant. Since the debt aversion is a residual non-rational fear (real, yes, but not justifiable), I don't think the public have a responsibility to cover it.

Do you understand the reasons why I disagree with you? Or do you not see anything other than the disagreement itself?

 

[stokes234]

Do you understand the reasons why I disagree with you? Or do you not see anything other than the disagreement itself?

Yes, I understand why you disagree with me. I feel it is important for society to ensure socio-economic background is not a factor in university choice. You apparently believe that that costs too much, and isn't the responsiblity of society. I think at this point, we are going round in circles, and should probably agree to disagree.

 

[Architect]

Yes, I understand why you disagree with me. I feel it is important for society to ensure socio-economic background is not a factor in university choice. You apparently believe that that costs too much, and isn't the responsiblity of society. I think at this point, we are going round in circles, and should probably agree to disagree.

Well said.

I'd have joined in more, but since she can't even apologise for the whole £21k mistake she made then I reckon she's not worth the effort. Her mind is already made up.