Trouble is that there's little evidence that university is an effective way of upskilling for the majority of undergraduates. Far more evidence to support the value of apprenticeships.
I'm not convinced by the loan system and amazed that so many students think that obviously valueless degrees are worth the same cost as degrees that convey far greater future value; but as Martin Lewis keeps pointing out they are not really loans but a graduate tax.

jvi at #123
Wanted to make sure you did not think there was anything fishy about it.

But aren’t we mostly agreeing here? The original post was to the effect that regulation is best done locally and that regulation set in Brussels is often inappropriate and a hindrance. My argument is that for many things it’s easily better (and cheaper) to do them as partners, plus we did directly agree to almost everything and that it is normally up to Member States to figure out the details. However, there are certainly EU standards and approvals that are only set by European Agencies or groups made up of Member States. They may invite others as observers, but only Member States get to vote in the end.

On immigration, again we seem to agree, but immigration hardly qualifies as lots of annoying regulations for it is surely the key issue. I’m not sure if you can have a derrogation from something as basic as freedom of movement, but plainly Cameron got very little. It leaves me wondering what was going on and with 3 main possibilities:

1) The rest of the EU thought Remain would easily win, so no need to offer any concessions
2) The rest of the EU saw it as a chance to push us out
3) They really didn’t care either way.

I worry that for some the desire to leave the EU would never be altered by anything, but they don’t seem to acknowledge that this might be matched by equally strong views in the EU who could refuse any compromise because, for them, it’s may not be about the money either. Ordinary folk are the ones who get hurt in all this.

jvi
There are four reasons why people voted the way they did-
-Years of austerity
-Stagnant wages for ten years.
-The triple down effect, which is just a trickle and not working .
- Tactical voting, vote NBA, next best alternative

Not being a socialist, I have some facility with numbers. JC (not noticed that before!) has stated that he/Labour party won the election? However the Labour party is still ~57 seats smaller than the Tories - in Jeremy speak "not a lot"? Even with the addition of "fellow travellers" it's difficult to see the anti-Tory "alliance" reaching 326.
The Tories fought a rotten campaign and although Brexit was and is the first task of any possible UK government it was not the only or possibly decisive factor in the election. I have long thought that Brexit (i.e. not another penny to the EU, not another law from the EU) was uncertain and may require another shock to the ruling classes if it is to be achieved at all.

Let me offer comfort in these uncertain times.
A non-political friend thought that a Tory landslide may well have produced violence from the outranged Corbynista "nasty brigades". Since they believe they have won, see above, this is now less likely.
The people have spoken in a Liberal approved election (so one that counts?) and the great party only got 2% of the seats, a great victory for the "You don't no what you voted for" Party?
I thought it under Flashman and still think that, if a politician isn't prepared to appear on TV and defend his/her case against even a BBC "picked" audience then they hardly deserve to win. When a seating PM does this, it's almost unforgivable.
The world is still turning, there is air to breath, still no WWIII as was promised after Brexit, so investments will go up or down and people are free to choose their preference or indeed none.