Miriam Cates under investigation

[Arealnumber]

Why has Miriam Cates suddenly gone under investigation? The comments in The Times are usually highly supportive of the MPs that speak out against Gender Ideology but they're properly railing against her. What has been her downfall?

Yes. I am well aware.

I am interested in those who are trying to vilify Miriam Cates for her comments about university fees telling me what they believe Labour would have done with the findings of the report they commissioned. AND what they will do now that the target of 50% is close - how will this be funded by the Labour Party if they wish to provide a less expensive user pays system?

Universities are truly struggling at the moment despite those fees.

Any solution has to be based in economic reality and very real outcomes for graduates. Do you agree?

And yet the Tory party has had three female leaders so far; the first leader of asian origin; first black chancellor, and so on. The Labour party seems to require short-lists ( imposing 'equality') of women and minority groups and yet has still to achieve any of the former.

'Equality'as such is ideological not practical.

There is also the question of how that debt is repaid, what the interest rate is and at what point it is written off. All of which have been changed by the current government, arguably to the detriment of woman who want to have children, who will now end up repaying more for longer.

No i don't agree, we don't live in the USSR and all learning is good learning, there are few pointless degrees & the ones that are usually are a very tiny part of a Universities intake.

Some of our most productive and profitable industries are in areas of media and creativity

Uni's are struggling because the Government has chosen to under fund them.

A student in France or Germany (in a public uni) pay less than 10% of what a student in England will pay, thats a political choice, the tories have chosen to fund tax cuts instead.

The argument that these (tax cuts) promote growth is pure BS, UK still has far lower overall tax take, even below OECD average, yet has shit growth and super low productivity.

Why can much of Europe provide cheaper higher and further education but we cannot? (or chose not too)

There are many other factors that contribute to universities poor financial performance. It is a rather blinkered view to declare that it is government underfunding.

Not blinkered, though refusing to accept that the Tories are underfunding higher education is.
Why do we in the UK accept such shoddy treatment of our children and our futures?

No wonder Cates is so concerned.

How does the UK compare internationally?
Even prior to the 2022 reforms, the UK had 'the lowest share of public funding in tertiary education among OECD member countries', with this figure at 24% compared to the OECD average of around 66%.
England and Wales also have the highest domestic undergraduate fees in the OECD, including the semi-privatised US system.
We spend 20% of our higher education expenditure on research and development, which is substantially lower than the OECD average of 29%. This highlights the success story of UK research under these conditions, but also shows that we cannot afford for this to slip further.

And yet, despite the government funding and the high student fees, you would think that universities would not be struggling? That they are struggling is a logical sign that they have other factors impacting their financial situation. One of those factors is delivering courses to very small classes. This is not cost effective and this is just the start.

I agree that fees are high and that universities don’t seem to offer the flexibility they have available to them for course delivery. I also agree that the interest is too high and they could offer other incentives to pay upfront etc. I don’t agree universities are struggling because of government funding.

I am saying there are people here vilifying an MP who is also pointing out issues within their own government.

Surely if an MP disagrees with the policies of their own party on something they hold to be very important they should look for another party, or sit as an independent.

I am pretty sure Miriam's natural home is the Conservative Party. She wont agree with everything, and can be equally effective by speaking up and attempting to influence from within.

I am not getting this adherence to group think. Corbyn was not a remainder. Most or his party were. Still did not stop him being leader.

Or if their party is the one whose policies they mainly agree with, they can try and change the ones that they disagree with, while still remaining a member of that party.

MPs have to be pragmatists rather than purists, and make compromises where necessary. If all MPs left their party every time they had a disagreement with some aspect of party policy we'd have a parliament of 650 independents.

Yes you’re not going to get complete agreement on everything

Look at the recent Gaza issue within Labour

It’s up to individual MPs anyway to stay

Plus treating women as Labour has Rosie Duffield for not being in complete agreement is dire

I remember that re education statement the Labour councillor had to publish

And who was that oh yes Nadia Whittome wanting to expel anyone not into gender ideology, writing as a kind of zealot

Pro women need not bother

So I think what you are saying is Cates is comfortable in a party that demonstrably repeatedly introduces policies that are detrimental to women.
Fair enough, but lets not pretend she is some kind of feminist then.

Well, if tuition fees in real terms are now worth just £6000 to the University and the Govt has also reduced funding, then what would you expect?

Uni's aren't businesses, they should be for the future investment in our country & young people and not providing education to the rest of the world in order to survive.

What courses have tiny class sizes?

Cates and her criticism of Government policy or gender etc are separate issues from her being investigated by the commons watchdog, she can say what many people agree with but can e.g. abuse her position and gained access to ministers (thats an example of the sort of thing the watchdog looks into, not that Cates did this)

Any suggestion that its not, is really saying the UK is no longer a democracy and that we are more akin to a totalitarian state.

A party launching an internal investigation into an MP or party member is a totally different issue & something the voters can cast judgement on when we have a GE.

You don't seem to have understood my post. Did I say she was a feminist? I have no idea whether she calls herself a feminist.

What is your opinion of MPs like Rosie Duffield, Tonia Antoniazzi and Joanna Cherry remaining in parties which hate women, and in Rosie Duffield's case have bullied her for not aligning with their abject woman-hatred?

Do you really think that a parliament made up of 650 independent MPs would be more effective?

And again, this is rather absolutist view of politics and really seems very unrealistic. Again, political parties have factions who constantly seek to have their priorities focused on and their solutions put forward. And some of those opinions will be very different from another group within the party.

For instance, how to manage women’s and girl’s sex based rights vs trans people’s demands in the Green Party. Opinions that are opposite, yet the same party. Tell us, should the women who prioritise women and girl’s having single sex spaces leave the Green Party? Why?

They are businesses in that they need to be still run efficiently and make sure they can cover their costs and expenditure. what makes you believe they are not to be run like individual businesses where they need to make sure they deliver the very best service that is wanted by students while getting the best value for the expenditure, including making sure they have high performing staff who in turn ensure that the best return on investment is achieved for any expenditure?

You do realise that universities have the freedom to set their own fees as long as it is less than the maximum cap. I also believe that the universities applied a great deal of pressure to increase that maximum cap. Because they wanted those funds. How many universities in England choose to charge less than the cap and by how much?

They are indeed like a business with their own unique needs fitting within the public sector.

What courses have tiny classes? Really? In my teen’s search for universities, I have discovered quite a number of universities take an intake of less than 35 students per year. How do you think that works financially compared to a large intake ? They lack efficiencies that you can get with an intake much larger.

And I have said nothing about her being investigated. Please read my posts. Again, I am responding to claims about her speech discussing university fees and her being vilified for pointing out the current impacts of those fees on students and conference.

@Helleofabore So not a business as they don't have to make a profit.

Uni's of course need to be run efficiently and not be wasteful but that doesn't make them a business.

So you cannot name any "tiny" class sizes, fair enough & 35 isn't a tiny intake, there was only 80 in my DD's health related course (of which there is a significant shortage in the NHS) & that halved within a year due to high drop out.

Some subjects are highly specialised, we as a country will need no more than a few 100 graduates per year, where would we get them otherwise?

Uni' graduates are our future, its crazy to burden our youth with debt that no other developed nation would entertain, why the UK, why no one else copying our funding model?

She isn't being vilified for her views on uni fee's but it is rather odd a MP should be so critical of her parties long standing policies on further/higher education.

I did state they were still regulated by the public sector. And I consider that charities should be run as businesses. If you don’t it is probably more terminology than it is a difference of understanding.

As I said. Even a charity should run to maximise efficiency where this is needed and to ensure funds are not wasted on non-performing personnel and wasteful decisions made by incompetent employees.

You want me to name a tiny class? And what out myself, and my family and friends who work in universities in senior positions. No thank you. You choose not to believe me, that is not my concern. I have been searching with different teens for courses over the past years, those courses are out there and they aren’t necessarily ‘specialised’ either as you attempt to position them.

I believe the UK has copied and maybe modified other countries models. Australia has had a contribution model such as this for decades. And it was brought in by a Labour Party government. The difference is that Australia doesn’t have a objective of 50% university degree, has a wide range of vocational qualifications via state run educational facilities, and quite a wide range of flexible delivery options that have been proven to work over decades.

On this thread some posters have directly vilified her because of sections of her speech that referred to university debts and delivery. Did you miss those?

it is rather odd a MP should be so critical of her parties long standing policies on further/higher education.

Tuition fees were first introduced by the Labour government in 1998. The massive expansion of higher education started under the Tories (Thatcher, Major), continued under Labour (Blair, Brown) and then further under the Tories since 2010. This is not something which one party or government has been responsible for.

This expansion and the introduction of fees has resulted in crippling debt for graduates, while the value of the degrees awarded has fallen. This fall in standards is inevitable, because once you have 50% of young people going to university instead of 15%, it's not possible to maintain the previous standard.

I got the impression that Miriam Cates was suggesting that the expansion of higher education and the debt young people (of both sexes) are left with was not entirely a good thing.

If your view of what Cates is suggesting about higher education is correct, isn't it rather odd an MP should be so critical of her patires long standing policies on further/higher education?

Why do you think it odd? As I've already said, the expansion of the universities and charging of fees has been the policy of both Tories and Labour for over 25 years. I wouldn't think it at all odd if some MPs from both these parties and others didn't agree that it's a good thing.

This article sets out some of the issues. It's safe to read as it's in a left-wing publication.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/08/the-great-university-con-how-the-british-degree-lost-its-value

She's a transphobic, right-wing MP who uses antisemitic, white supremacist dog-whistles such as "cultural marxism." She's anti-immigration, oppose no-fault divorce, opposes support for women returning to work, has voted against abortion rights and suggests "excessive education" is a problem especially for women. Unsuprisingly, she's an evangelical Christian. This might have nothing at all to do with why she is being investigated.

So not someone you would vote for?

Seriously though many people in our country are socially conservative, distrust gender ideology, are concerned at the rate of immigration etc. This is why the Tories won the red wall last time.

Labour has a choice. Reject such views as wrong, or risk losing those voters.

suggests "excessive education" is a problem especially for women.

She hasn't said this, as has been explained many times on this thread. And getting into vast amounts of debt in order to buy a degree isn't "excessive education", its a sham.