UK General Election/Politics

First topic message reminder :

Here's a possible thread for it all, despite the lack of political input from me to start it!

Mods if you want to/can cut and paste the recent obviously political "discussions" from the Anything Goes, here might serve?

MontysMerkin wrote:It's the new way for education but it should really be not for profit. After what Coventry Uni has started it's only a matter of time before the whole greedy pack of 'em are doing it.

I'm doing some research into medical publishing at the mo, Elsevier turn over $2.5bn annually with a 37% profit margin. Those sort of numbers would make anyone wince, unless you're the venture capitalist owners...

Whoa! Really? Serious bunce.

navyblueshorts wrote:

MontysMerkin wrote:It's the new way for education but it should really be not for profit. After what Coventry Uni has started it's only a matter of time before the whole greedy pack of 'em are doing it.

I'm doing some research into medical publishing at the mo, Elsevier turn over $2.5bn annually with a 37% profit margin. Those sort of numbers would make anyone wince, unless you're the venture capitalist owners...

Whoa! Really? Serious bunce.

Knocks Apple into a cocked hat! Yep, it's money for old rope. Researchers pay publishers to get published, publisher sticks research behind paywall and watches cash pour in. Trouble is of course that a lot of this research (in the UK) is paid for by HEE or directly by the NHS who then have to pay to get acess to it. Ever wondered why research takes so long to get to the frontline? Publishers taking 2 years and more to publish stuff that could be helping now.

About a decade ago physicists got together and said "enough is enough" and they all publish (near enough) open access. The rate of progress in this field is astonishing since this happened. There have been continual calls for this to happen in the health sciences but the profit margins are too large and life is too cheap...

navyblueshorts wrote:

Diggers wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Diggers wrote:Yeah, scrapping tuition fees is horrendous. Bringing back grammars and scrapping free school meals (whilst blatantly lying about costings) is on the other hand fantastic.

It's all very well to scrap them, and I'm not sure they work, but an honest discussion must be had with the public about the cost if they do this. How much would it add per year, to say general taxation, if they got rid of fees and funded through taxation/grants? In addition, >80% of the central HE Government grant to all HE institutions has been ripped out of the system over the last 10-15 years. The Universities have to be able to function and if money isn't coming from fees, where else?

I would means test the fees Navy, I don't really agree it's a great universal idea. I do know universities generate vast amounts from overseas tuition fees, my wife did the HR for a company who made a lot of money doing that. Also research funding from industry is a big revenue stream. How much overall, I don't know.
It's just the use of the words diabolical and horrendous for the policy that is OTT IMO, with clearly no actual ability from the poster to reason based on knowledge of the subject. Weak.

Overseas tuition fees can generate a bit for some course/Faculties, but not many; there aren't significant enough overseas students on many courses, particularly a lot of the STEM areas. Research funding contributes nothing to the tuition of undergrads; it might contribute to HE overheads, but I'm pretty sure that just vanishes into the ether (read: research infrastructure and other such things) and certainly doesn't help with the education side of things, except by accident.

Not sure how accurate this is but this is some research data from 2014-15 -
International students paid an estimated £4.8 billion in tuition fees to UK universities. This accounts for over 14% of total university income. Some 88% – £4.2 billion – of this fee income was paid by students from outside the EU
As well as university fees and accommodation, international students spent £5.4 billion off-campus on goods and services

It's pretty significant, and as far as I know is growing, but as you say would not cover everything.

MontysMerkin wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

MontysMerkin wrote:It's the new way for education but it should really be not for profit. After what Coventry Uni has started it's only a matter of time before the whole greedy pack of 'em are doing it.

I'm doing some research into medical publishing at the mo, Elsevier turn over $2.5bn annually with a 37% profit margin. Those sort of numbers would make anyone wince, unless you're the venture capitalist owners...

Whoa! Really? Serious bunce.

Knocks Apple into a cocked hat! Yep, it's money for old rope. Researchers pay publishers to get published, publisher sticks research behind paywall and watches cash pour in. Trouble is of course that a lot of this research (in the UK) is paid for by HEE or directly by the NHS who then have to pay to get acess to it. Ever wondered why research takes so long to get to the frontline? Publishers taking 2 years and more to publish stuff that could be helping now.

About a decade ago physicists got together and said "enough is enough" and they all publish (near enough) open access. The rate of progress in this field is astonishing since this happened. There have been continual calls for this to happen in the health sciences but the profit margins are too large and life is too cheap...

Yeah, hopefully it's changing all round now. UK grant funding bodies (public money that is; Wellcome the same I think) now require papers in open access publications. The REF (HE research assessment thingy) requires the same I think.

Diggers wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Diggers wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Diggers wrote:Yeah, scrapping tuition fees is horrendous. Bringing back grammars and scrapping free school meals (whilst blatantly lying about costings) is on the other hand fantastic.

It's all very well to scrap them, and I'm not sure they work, but an honest discussion must be had with the public about the cost if they do this. How much would it add per year, to say general taxation, if they got rid of fees and funded through taxation/grants? In addition, >80% of the central HE Government grant to all HE institutions has been ripped out of the system over the last 10-15 years. The Universities have to be able to function and if money isn't coming from fees, where else?

I would means test the fees Navy, I don't really agree it's a great universal idea. I do know universities generate vast amounts from overseas tuition fees, my wife did the HR for a company who made a lot of money doing that. Also research funding from industry is a big revenue stream. How much overall, I don't know.
It's just the use of the words diabolical and horrendous for the policy that is OTT IMO, with clearly no actual ability from the poster to reason based on knowledge of the subject. Weak.

Overseas tuition fees can generate a bit for some course/Faculties, but not many; there aren't significant enough overseas students on many courses, particularly a lot of the STEM areas. Research funding contributes nothing to the tuition of undergrads; it might contribute to HE overheads, but I'm pretty sure that just vanishes into the ether (read: research infrastructure and other such things) and certainly doesn't help with the education side of things, except by accident.

Not sure how accurate this is but this is some research data from 2014-15 -
International students paid an estimated £4.8 billion in tuition fees to UK universities. This accounts for over 14% of total university income. Some 88% – £4.2 billion – of this fee income was paid by students from outside the EU
As well as university fees and accommodation, international students spent £5.4 billion off-campus on goods and services

It's pretty significant, and as far as I know is growing, but as you say would not cover everything.

Interesting figure and don't doubt the veracity, but I suspect much of this is in, shall we say, newer Universities and I'd be surprised if significant in many of the 'top' institutions. Also, very course-specific. The off-campus spend is a pretty significant number, which is one of the many reasons why Brexit is so stupid. Changes to Tier 4 visas haven't helped either.
I know one institution who, I think, charges non-EU international post-grad students ~£25,000 p.a. to study for a lab-based scientific Ph.D. and ~£20,000 for M.Sc. If only a decent amount of that went into their tuition .

MontysMerkin wrote:It's the new way for education but it should really be not for profit. After what Coventry Uni has started it's only a matter of time before the whole greedy pack of 'em are doing it.

I'm doing some research into medical publishing at the mo, Elsevier turn over $2.5bn annually with a 37% profit margin. Those sort of numbers would make anyone wince, unless you're the venture capitalist owners...

No wonder given the cost of articles. My dissertation should have had a clause stating "information correct based on articles affordable at time of writing".

The uni library database was mostly only free up to six months before present.

McLaren wrote:

MontysMerkin wrote:It's the new way for education but it should really be not for profit. After what Coventry Uni has started it's only a matter of time before the whole greedy pack of 'em are doing it.

I'm doing some research into medical publishing at the mo, Elsevier turn over $2.5bn annually with a 37% profit margin. Those sort of numbers would make anyone wince, unless you're the venture capitalist owners...

No wonder given the cost of articles. My dissertation should have had a clause stating "information correct based on articles affordable at time of writing".

The uni library database was mostly only free up to six months before present.

They are free to you but not the uni. They will have journal bundle deals in place that offer the back catalogue. They are not cheap deals either! Some efforts are being made to free up research after a 1 year embargo, but as you can imagine the publishers are dragging their feet...
Ben Goldacre has written some good stuff about it - check out his ted talk on bad science and publishing https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm an elitist and I'm all for furthering the lives of middle class children, they should not be held back to appease the lower classes, you're line of thinking is well off and you seem to think I'd be against these things. I'm for myself first and foremost, I'm for my daughter and my family, I'm not for those who have achieved nothing and expect the same as those that have.

What kind of a Poopie GRAMMAR school did you go to?

Monty, are you saying that the Manchester bomber wasn't British?
That the Paris and Nice terrorists weren't French? That the Brussels terrorists weren't Belgian? And so on. Because that's what I'm reading.

Looks like last Mondays atrocity hasn't changed the polling pattern, the gap is getting closer.
Personally I don't think Corbyn was seeking to make political capital in his speech, you have to discuss foreign policy in a campaign,  and regardless of Monday this would have been his message. I think a few more days might have been appropriate. IMO the real attempt at making political capital was from twisting what he said.
The non intervention policy will pick up a lot of UKIPers and possibly Liberals (Fallon really is a muppet).
Whether this will transpire on the day I'm not so sure, the next week will be interesting, one more Tory policy balls up could make it squeaky bum time for them.

Also, Corbyn is only repeating what he said before we went into Iraq. I am not so sure the link between invasion and jihadism is as simple as that but leaving Iraq in a total mess certainly made things a whole lot easier for the Islamic State.

What's wrong with Elsevier or any other company making money?

Super

For starters it doesn't exactly make academic journals accessible. The main issue however is the garbage papers that they publish, I am sure Monty will be able to expand on this.

Mac, that's part of your responsibility as someone with an MSc to be able to give a critical response of a journal. It's not up to them to discern what is good and what is not, they simply publish it.

How are they not accessible?

super_realist wrote:What's wrong with Elsevier or any other company making money?

Nothing, but if it's public money that's funding the research, the results of that research should not be hidden behind a pay wall if/when it's published.

super_realist wrote:Mac, that's part of your responsibility as someone with an MSc to be able to give a critical response of a journal. It's not up to them to discern what is good and what is not, they simply publish it.

How are they not accessible?

They don't "simply publish" it. At leas not if their journals want to retain any reputation for quality, which then leads to people wanting to publish in them. That's what the editorial peer review processes are for.

Not accessible? See above re. pay walls and publicly funded research.

What I mean is they don't write it, nor are they the peers who review it.
Not sure why anyone thinks they are any different than the publisher of course textbooks. There is a fee to buy them too.

super_realist wrote:nor are they the peers who review it.

But they are. The journals referees "peer review" a paper to decide if it goes into the journal. How did you think it worked?

Some of my old lecturers have stuff on Elsevier, it's peer reviewed by THEIR peers, not Elsevier's. Much of the time they simply reproduce what has already been published in journals and periodicals.

Elsevier is simply a third party. They may well commission and publish some stuff, but at least in my own use, most of it came from elsewhere.

S_R. You're missing the point a little. Publicly funded research shouldn't be behind pay walls.

Super

You are missing the point. The fantasy of peer review post publication is just that. The main "peer review" is done by those deciding what goes into the journals.

Of course, I forgot you were an actual published Scientist Mac.

Super

What do you think of the UKIPs idea for internment camps for suspected terrorists?

McLaren wrote:Super

What do you think of the UKIPs idea for internment camps for suspected terrorists?

Worked great in Northern Ireland didn't it? I knew they were dumb, just not by how much...

McLaren wrote:Super

What do you think of the UKIPs idea for internment camps for suspected terrorists?

Probably best if we just intern the religious Mac. Isn't it the Chief of the Met calling for that?

Chief of the met, as in metropolitan police? Calling for what? I've seen nothing of the sort, are you making stuff up?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/internment-camps-prison-extremists-terror-plot-level-former-met-police-chief-tarique-ghaffur-a7761871.html

The guy that carried out the Manchester attacks had just arrived back from Libya, some reports say he was in Syria too, fighting with IS. There definitely needs to be something done with combatants returning home from these places, at least a high level of screening. I don't think it's unreasonable to do this. I would even say any right thinking Muslim would be in favour of it, as the last thing they would want is radicalised nutters returning to the UK and making their lives a misery. Internment camps would be counter productive, they would become a hotbed for radicalisation. Anyone returning from the ME has got to be under scrutiny. How big are there numbers I wonder?

Oh, so it was an ex assistant in the met, not the current chief. He was writing in thr daily mail so pandering to right wingers anyway, its also a fricking ridiculous idea.

The bomber had been reported to the security services they unfortunately messed up on this one, but they do a good job on ones we dont hear about.

So what's been happening back home? Been in Costa del Sol this week so a bit out of touch, from what I'm picking up on social media Corbyn seems to be getting a bit of momentum??

Got to be wary of polls Jas, but the gap seems to be closing, maybe around 5-6% now. Massive surge in London for Jezza apparently. He did well on the debate I think, massive blunder by the Tories to send Rudd who was pretty poor and downbeat (unsurprising as I believe her father died this week).
Another good week could make things interesting, they need to lock Abbott up to avoid anymore gaffs from her.
It really has been poor for the Tories, a campaign of arrogance and little substance. Can May survive if she only comes out with a small majority? Would seem like a huge fail after starting with a 20 point lead.

I guess that's where the 'Vote May, get Boris' idea comes from.

Diggers wrote:Got to be wary of polls Jas, but the gap seems to be closing, maybe around 5-6% now. Massive surge in London for Jezza apparently. He did well on the debate I think, massive blunder by the Tories to send Rudd who was pretty poor and downbeat  (unsurprising as I believe her father died this week).
Another good week could make things interesting, they need to lock Abbott up to avoid anymore gaffs from her.
It really has been poor for the Tories, a campaign of arrogance and little substance. Can May survive if she only comes out with a small majority? Would seem like a huge fail after starting with a 20 point lead.

Corbyn's car crash with Emma Barnett was probably more widely spread than his perceived performance in the "debate". I think at best he's treading water.

Really? I think the interesting point for me is the Barnett interview barely caused much reaction.

Watched the question time leaders special last nigjt. I'm astonished howmany people seem to want our leader to fire off a nuclear weapon. I would rather one who explains why he wouldn't fire one rather than soneone who would want to. Once again May was awful and eadily overshadowed by corbyn.

The hypothetical nuclear question is bizarre, how on earth can you randomly answer that. Clearly, it's easier for Teresa, she just consults with the big guy in the sky. If he says yes then the button gets pressed!

Bizarre speech from May. What does "enough is enough" even mean? Question, who has been either HS or PM for 7 years? You might want to look a bit closer to home Teresa.

Diggers wrote:The hypothetical nuclear question is bizarre, how on earth can you randomly answer that. Clearly, it's easier for Teresa, she just consults with the big guy in the sky. If he says yes then the button gets pressed!

What happened to Nancy Reagans astrologer?

Died unexpectedly

I don't quite understand why if Corbyn gets bombarded to that level on nukes, May should get the same. Ok Corbyn has an issue with first use, ok we've got that, we don't need the question re-asked every 5 minutes. Now Teresa....by definition you would quite happily press the big red button first. What a hero for all humanity you are...please tell us who would be the proud recipient of Plutonium up the Jacksie
Please choose from the list below
A) N Korea
B) Iran
C) Russia
D) Syria
E) Iraq
F) Germany
G) somebody else

After you choose the most likely one, Please tell us the circumstances which would lead you to the button.


Completely bizarre questions but fairs fair, Corbyn gets a grilling on non use she should get a grilling on use.

Has TM ever implied she would press the red button first?

I would hope neither would press it first - the point is surely who would use our deterrent in retaliation and who would invite them around for a cup of tea and cake

I believe she has Davie, if you don't press first there ain't going to be any tea and cakes. If you do press first,  unless you enemy is as slow as Kevin Na, there ain't going to be any tea and cakes.
When there's a nuke headed for us, that's it, retaliation or not, that's it it's game over.
Traditional strategic theory says if we have them it deters other nations from attacking us. That may be true but I struggle to see who would use it against us...you could say Russia because of our geographical position...do we honestly think they would and the US would just stand by?? Who else? Can Iran or Iraq reach us?

The biggest threat as far as I see it is for a crowd of these nut jobs  to get their hands on a dirty bomb. Now if that happened where the feck is the retaliatory strike going to be fired at??

Also....what's wrong with tea and cake??...to be fair it's more likely to be lentil stew and nut loaf on offer rather than tea and cake :-p

That is ultimately the point of Trident to say you would use it under certain circumstances, saying it and doing it are two completely different things, it was actually Michael Fallon who said it not Theresa May I believe.

JAS wrote:I believe she has Davie, if you don't press first there ain't going to be any tea and cakes. If you do press first,  unless you enemy is as slow as Kevin Na, there ain't going to be any tea and cakes.
When there's a nuke headed for us, that's it, retaliation or not, that's it it's game over.
Traditional strategic theory says if we have them it deters other nations from attacking us. That may be true but I struggle to see who would use it against us...you could say Russia because of our geographical position...do we honestly think they would and the US would just stand by?? Who else? Can Iran or Iraq reach us?

The biggest threat as far as I see it is for a crowd of these nut jobs  to get their hands on a dirty bomb. Now if that happened where the feck is the retaliatory strike going to be fired at??

Also....what's wrong with tea and cake??...to be fair it's more likely to be lentil stew and nut loaf on offer rather than tea and cake :-p

Well they did in WW1 and WW2, only turning up when both were on the wain. So, yes, I could see America sitting on their hands (again)

Sit on their hand while who attacks us??

You asked if America would "stand by" and I said they had before, why wouldn't they again?

super_realist wrote:You asked if America would "stand by" and I said they had before, why wouldn't they again?

Eeh, Nato?

NATO hasn't always stepped in during attack or invasion either.

Surely whether the US actually would or would not assist isn't relevant. It's the same concept as the deterrent, logically you would imagine that they would, therefore this is enough to stop any attack on the UK in the first place. That said, with some of the nutters running the world these days, all bets are off.
Mind you, it's clear May is completely willing to be Trumps poodle, as our PM she doesn't even have the backbone to support the mayor of our capital city. She really does no backbone whatsoever, everything that is abhorrent about a modern politician wrapped up in one person.