Wednesday 26th July 2017

[RogerOThornhill]

Right, and what do you think the % of graduates was 25 years ago at UCL?

And what was the % of foreign students?

I have no idea - why don't you enlighten us since you are the one with all the knowledge about everything to do with UK universities?

While you're doing that, any evidence for UK students finding it difficult to get a place would be good too.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... 10-factory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Boots ends 130 years of manufacturing as it sells off factories
Concern over 1,100 jobs at historic Nottinghamshire site after French firm Fareva signs deal with Walgreens Boots Alliance

[Willow904]

Can you name a "top" university that is completely private, enjoys no government tax breaks or subsidies and has no publically funded scholars on its rolls?

I'm not convinced the "go it alone" option is quite as simple and attractive as you suggest.

Wholly? There are none. But if you look at the LSE, the teaching of UK undergraduates is now a small part of its business. It has got out of it quite deliberately.

So unless the government facilitates it, "top" universities are unlikely to be able go properly private and remain top universities. Even Ivy League colleges rely on some government funding. So an empty threat.

Indeed, it's interesting how the increase in international students at the expense of domestic undergraduates has happened concurrently with the introduction of the student loan system which, if you remember I previously pointed out, was introduced specifically to enable the very commercialisation of our HE institutions that has since come about. You theorise that abolishing fees will lead to universities abandoning their traditional role of teaching domestic undergraduates in favour of international commercial interests, only to then produce evidence that far from being a potential result of abolishing fees, this is already happening and accelerating under the student loan system.

Though I am no expert, I would tentatively suggest that the move from predominantly funding universities to predominantly funding individual students has weakened, rather than strengthened, the governments control over the shape of our HE system and its ability to fulfil our country's higher educational needs in the most cost effective manner.

[SpinningHugo]

Right, and what do you think the % of graduates was 25 years ago at UCL?

And what was the % of foreign students?

I have no idea - why don't you enlighten us since you are the one with all the knowledge about everything to do with UK universities?

While you're doing that, any evidence for UK students finding it difficult to get a place would be good too.

You can find numbers going back 20 years (not 25) here

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/statistics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You'll see undergrad numbers have increased. But graduate numbers are 5x what they were (go back a few years and it is much more dramatic, the graduate boom started in the early 90s as the financial pressure caused by undergraduates kicked in).

Plenty of places for UK undergraduates in the system of course. But my claim is that the top Universities are no longer primarily about delivering undergraduate teaching to UK undergraduates in the way they were 25 years ago. They have far more graduate students, and of the undergraduates far more of them are from overseas.

Why?

1) You won't make a loss on them as you can charge at market

2) No controls over who you admit.

Abolish fees, you'll cut University independence from government funding, and the incentive that is already there will increase.

There will always be, I expect, UK undergraduates at our top Universities. They will just be in a smaller minority overtime. At one time UCL's student body would have been almost all UK undergraduates. Now it is around 1/3, and falling.

LSE is more dramatic than UCL. Some faculties admit UK students for marketing purposes. If you fill a faculty with students from Singapore with 4 As at A level (as you could) they will no longer feel they're going to an English University. So, you keep some UK students (i) to keep the UK government happy and (ii) to keep the foreign students coming.

[SpinningHugo]

So unless the government facilitates it, "top" universities are unlikely to be able go properly private and remain top universities. Even Ivy League colleges rely on some government funding. So an empty threat.

Why would you think that? The UK undergraduate teaching is loss making, it is the other parts of the business that cross subsidise it. Get out of it. If politically too difficult, just cut it back to a minimum (as the LSE has done).

[PaulfromYorkshire]

So unless the government facilitates it, "top" universities are unlikely to be able go properly private and remain top universities. Even Ivy League colleges rely on some government funding. So an empty threat.

Why would you think that? The UK undergraduate teaching is loss making, it is the other parts of the business that cross subsidise it. Get out of it. If politically too difficult, just cut it back to a minimum (as the LSE has done).

You've completely ignored my informed observation that Universities are aiming for a mix of home and international to optimise income vs risk.

[SpinningHugo]

So unless the government facilitates it, "top" universities are unlikely to be able go properly private and remain top universities. Even Ivy League colleges rely on some government funding. So an empty threat.

Why would you think that? The UK undergraduate teaching is loss making, it is the other parts of the business that cross subsidise it. Get out of it. If politically too difficult, just cut it back to a minimum (as the LSE has done).

You've completely ignored my informed observation that Universities are aiming for a mix of home and international to optimise income vs risk.

Of course Universities admit according to income and risk. That is why the top ones are no longer primarily about teaching UK undergraduates. Remove fees, make UK undergraduate expenses turn on government funding, and they'll get out of it even more aggressively.

I regret this. I think where we are headed is private universities charging higher fees, like the New College of the Humanities.

[Tubby Isaacs]

There will always be, I expect, UK undergraduates at our top Universities. They will just be in a smaller minority overtime. At one time UCL's student body would have been almost all UK undergraduates. Now it is around 1/3, and falling.

Trying to think of my undergraduate year at Oxford, 1990. 1 Cypriot, 1 Irish, 1 Kenyan, 1 American, and I think the other 100 plus all British. It's like trying to think of football at the same time. "Hey, there was that guy, Ray Atteveld, played for Everton!"

[RogerOThornhill]

You can find numbers going back 20 years (not 25) here

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/statistics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You'll see undergrad numbers have increased. But graduate numbers are 5x what they were (go back a few years and it is much more dramatic, the graduate boom started in the early 90s as the financial pressure caused by undergraduates kicked in).

Plenty of places for UK undergraduates in the system of course. But my claim is that the top Universities are no longer primarily about delivering undergraduate teaching to UK undergraduates in the way they were 25 years ago. They have far more graduate students, and of the undergraduates far more of them are from overseas.

I see. From table N UK undergrads have risen from 7,581 to 10,313 over the past 20 years.

So your claim that:

that is another reason why our best Universities have got out of the business of teaching UK undergraduates.

was pure hyperbole then.

As you've provided the figures that refute your own statement we'll leave it there.

[HindleA]

Ignoring experientially based opinion,does seem to be the trend.I know nothing about universities beyond hardly attending,vague recollection of some sort of buildings.Personally,later OU I found preferable where I went to three different ones via summer school(when not causing destruction of docks)the scenes of drug filled orgies seem.to pass me by.On reflection I should have had a gap year and grown up a tad,though we all did the go for a year,leave and finish later thing.

[SpinningHugo]

You can find numbers going back 20 years (not 25) here

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/statistics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You'll see undergrad numbers have increased. But graduate numbers are 5x what they were (go back a few years and it is much more dramatic, the graduate boom started in the early 90s as the financial pressure caused by undergraduates kicked in).

Plenty of places for UK undergraduates in the system of course. But my claim is that the top Universities are no longer primarily about delivering undergraduate teaching to UK undergraduates in the way they were 25 years ago. They have far more graduate students, and of the undergraduates far more of them are from overseas.

I see. From table N UK undergrads have risen from 7,581 to 10,313 over the past 20 years.

So your claim that:

that is another reason why our best Universities have got out of the business of teaching UK undergraduates.

was pure hyperbole then.

As you've provided the figures that refute your own statement we'll leave it there.

No because

1. As I said I was talking about the overall business.

2. Over that time the increase will all be down to non UK undergraduates. Outside the EU, they can charge at market.

[RogerOThornhill]

By the way, I know this sounds obvious, but to get to do an MA and then PhD you'll need an undergrad degree first - if no top universities are in the business of undergraduates any longer, I wonder where they're coming from?

From that UCL Table N, you could conclude that while undergrad numbers have gone up, more undergrads than ever think that going the extra mile and doing MA/PhD may be necessary in today's jobs market.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Ignoring experientially based opinion,does seem to be the trend.I know nothing about universities beyond hardly attending,vague recollection of some sort of buildings.Personally,later OU I found preferable where I went to three different ones via summer school(when not causing destruction of docks)the scenes of drug filled orgies seem.to pass me by.On reflection I should have had a gap year and grown up a tad,though we all did the go for a year,leave and finish later thing.

Yes I would have benefited from a gap year too. I'd barely turned 18 when I went to Uni and wasn't the most grown up of freshers!

[Tubby Isaacs]

Somebody well worth following on Twitter. Scottish expert on higher education funding, Lucy Hunter Blackburn.

https://twitter.com/lucyhunterb?lang=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Somebody well worth following on Twitter. Scottish expert on higher education funding, Lucy Hunter Blackburn.

https://twitter.com/lucyhunterb?lang=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks

@wonkHE is also very informative

[citizenJA]

Ignoring experientially based opinion,does seem to be the trend.I know nothing about universities beyond hardly attending,vague recollection of some sort of buildings.Personally,later OU I found preferable where I went to three different ones via summer school(when not causing destruction of docks)the scenes of drug filled orgies seem.to pass me by.On reflection I should have had a gap year and grown up a tad,though we all did the go for a year,leave and finish later thing.

Yes I would have benefited from a gap year too. I'd barely turned 18 when I went to Uni and wasn't the most grown up of freshers!

I left university at nineteen without having completed anything and returned six years later completing my degrees.

[Willow904]

So unless the government facilitates it, "top" universities are unlikely to be able go properly private and remain top universities. Even Ivy League colleges rely on some government funding. So an empty threat.

Why would you think that? The UK undergraduate teaching is loss making, it is the other parts of the business that cross subsidise it. Get out of it. If politically too difficult, just cut it back to a minimum (as the LSE has done).

So name me that world class university that is completely private with only private students. You are saying if we change our HE system our best universities will opt out and remain top universities. I'm suggesting this is not very likely. I think it an empty threat. I think they will have to lump it or if they don't lump it they won't remain top universities for long with only private income and private students. Oxbridge has influence over government HE policy, of course it does, but it's not omnipotent. Our HE system should be shaped around the training and skills needs of the country, not the commercial ambitions of our elite institutions. You're talking as if it matters in skills investment terms whether we train our lawyers at Oxford or Aberystwyth. It doesn't. It only matters in cultural and elitist terms. There could be something to be said for calling their bluff.

[citizenJA]

Good-afternoon, everyone

[citizenJA]

Good information posted here today, you're wonderful people
I'm happy knowing you

[HindleA]

AHA!

[Tubby Isaacs]

Somebody well worth following on Twitter. Scottish expert on higher education funding, Lucy Hunter Blackburn.

https://twitter.com/lucyhunterb?lang=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks

@wonkHE is also very informative

I didn't know that one. Thanks to you too.

[Tubby Isaacs]

So unless the government facilitates it, "top" universities are unlikely to be able go properly private and remain top universities. Even Ivy League colleges rely on some government funding. So an empty threat.

Why would you think that? The UK undergraduate teaching is loss making, it is the other parts of the business that cross subsidise it. Get out of it. If politically too difficult, just cut it back to a minimum (as the LSE has done).[/terms ]

So name me that world class university that is completely private with only private students. You are saying if we change our HE system our best universities will opt out and remain top universities. I'm suggesting this is not very likely. I think it an empty threat. I think they will have to lump it or if they don't lump it they won't remain top universities for long with only private income and private students. Oxbridge has influence over government HE policy, of course it does, but it's not omnipotent. Our HE system should be shaped around the training and skills needs of the country, not the commercial ambitions of our elite institutions. You're talking as if it matters in skills investment terms whether we train our lawyers at Oxford or Aberystwyth. It doesn't. It only matters in cultural and elitist terms. There could be something to be said for calling their bluff.

I think it would be a huge call to go private in England, but the MIT, Stanford, Yale etc are all private.

[Tubby Isaacs]

http://www.newstatesman.com/2017/07/man ... ions-table

If as I suspect, staying within the EU is the best deal on offer in 2019, we should not deny voters the possibility of taking it. Jeremy’s past Euroscepticism, his vote against both the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties, actually makes him the best person to renegotiate a new future for Britain in the EU, not a Brexit deal which will harm the implementation of our manifesto and our vision of a People's Europe.

That's an odd comment there because the thing in the election was "Do you want Keir Starmer or David Davis?" Corbyn wasn't really pushed as having any great wisdom on the EU.

Sadly, even if we stay in from here, with which I'd be delighted, Britain's cred is blown for donkey's years by our antics.

[Willow904]

Why would you think that? The UK undergraduate teaching is loss making, it is the other parts of the business that cross subsidise it. Get out of it. If politically too difficult, just cut it back to a minimum (as the LSE has done).

So name me that world class university that is completely private with only private students. You are saying if we change our HE system our best universities will opt out and remain top universities. I'm suggesting this is not very likely. I think it an empty threat. I think they will have to lump it or if they don't lump it they won't remain top universities for long with only private income and private students. Oxbridge has influence over government HE policy, of course it does, but it's not omnipotent. Our HE system should be shaped around the training and skills needs of the country, not the commercial ambitions of our elite institutions. You're talking as if it matters in skills investment terms whether we train our lawyers at Oxford or Aberystwyth. It doesn't. It only matters in cultural and elitist terms. There could be something to be said for calling their bluff.

I think it would be a huge call to go private in England, but the MIT, Stanford, Yale etc are all private.

Well, I might be wrong, but I think most US colleges receive at least some public money and at least some students receive public grants or scholarships to attend them and they all enjoy tax breaks. Could they thrive without any government assistance at all? That's what I'm getting at here. The government still has some cards up its sleeve, it's not completely in thrall to the commercial interests of HE institutions unless it chooses to be.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Also, I think you can overstress "commercial" ambitions with universities. There are some overpaid senior managers, sure, but as institutions they basically want to have good students and do good research. The elite private universities in America have huge fees, but they could raise them and pay less bursaries if they only cared about business.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Well, I might be wrong, but I think most US colleges receive at least some public money and at least some students receive public grants or scholarships to attend them and they all enjoy tax breaks. Could they thrive without any government assistance at all? That's what I'm getting at here. The government still has some cards up its sleeve, it's not completely in thrall to the commercial interests of HE institutions unless it chooses to be.

The problem with that argument is that if universities (or at least enough people high up in them) are business driven, they won't care about upping sticks.

I suppose I'm arguing that they (mostly) aren't like that, and that's why going fully private would be unlikely in England. Plus of course the reputational damage would be significant.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -thinktank" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Lack of mental health support leaving children stuck in hospital – thinktank
Figures show rise in number of ‘wasted days’ spent in hospital by young patients who have been declared fit for discharge

[Tubby Isaacs]

I appreciate what Cortes is saying about staying in the EU/ Single Market, but I wish he didn't overdo this "People's Europe". The problems we have are domestic, and what got the most indebted Eurozone countries into trouble was domestic.

This sort of stuff is like Cameron talking about reforming the EU before his referendum. False hopes.

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/esse ... ue-service" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Essex PCC to take on responsibility of local fire and rescue service

A number of other PCCs are currently developing business cases or exploring options for the future governance of fire and rescue services.

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plan ... -published" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... in-uk-2017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Plan for roadside NO2 concentrations published

[Willow904]

Well, I might be wrong, but I think most US colleges receive at least some public money and at least some students receive public grants or scholarships to attend them and they all enjoy tax breaks. Could they thrive without any government assistance at all? That's what I'm getting at here. The government still has some cards up its sleeve, it's not completely in thrall to the commercial interests of HE institutions unless it chooses to be.

The problem with that argument is that if universities (or at least enough people high up in them) are business driven, they won't care about upping sticks.

I suppose I'm arguing that they (mostly) aren't like that, and that's why going fully private would be unlikely in England. Plus of course the reputational damage would be significant.

SH has been arguing all our top universities would go private if we abolished student loan paid tuition fees. I've merely been pointing out that all top universities appear to work mostly within their own government endorsed systems, even private US colleges. I can't bring to mind any examples of a university successfully going it alone, private outside a non-private system, but there's doubtless some or why would it be considered a genuine option that prevents us getting rid of student loans. I just find it an unlikely argument, myself.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/social-care ... blic-money" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Why investing £60k in home adaptations saves public money
The savings are clear, but pressure on budgets is restricting opportunities for disabled young people and their families

[Tubby Isaacs]

I agree it's unlikely in the near future. Beyond that though?

The comparison that keeps coming to mind with elite universities is elite football clubs.

[Willow904]

I agree it's unlikely in the near future. Beyond that though?

The comparison that keeps coming to mind with elite universities is elite football clubs.

Kind of backwards surely? Easy to get the best players when you pay them. Harder to recruit the best students when they are being asked to pay you

[SpinningHugo]

You could also look at the revenue streams of top universities compared to 25 years ago.

Back then their core business was UK undergraduate reaching.

Nowadays, reserach income, commercial earnings and endowment from fundraising are bigger. Every UK undergrad admitted is a loss.

So, return back to the world where that income is at government discretion, and they'll look elsewhere. Probably not whole institutions in one big jump, but incrementally department by department. The better law schools, for example, will go grad only, or go private funded by the top law firms. And so on.

If your concern is access for the poor to good quality HE, abolishing fees will quickly turn out to be counterproductive.

And as for the claim this change is far fetched: it has been happening slowly for decades.

[SpinningHugo]

Most US Universities are wholly private.

UK universities are also private institutions. It is just that they've taken their undergraduate fee income for UK students from the state. In other respects they're wholly independent/private.

[Willow904]

You could also look at the revenue streams of top universities compared to 25 years ago.

Back then their core business was UK undergraduate reaching.

Nowadays, reserach income, commercial earnings and endowment from fundraising are bigger. Every UK undergrad admitted is a loss.

So, return back to the world where that income is at government discretion, and they'll look elsewhere. Probably not whole institutions in one big jump, but incrementally department by department. The better law schools, for example, will go grad only, or go private funded by the top law firms. And so on.

If your concern is access for the poor to good quality HE, abolishing fees will quickly turn out to be counterproductive.

And as for the claim this change is far fetched: it has been happening slowly for decades.

Yes, but to what degree is this inevitable as opposed to the deliberate result of changes in funding and structures within FE and HE brought in by the Tories in the 80s and 90s? Later extended by Blair with loans for higher tuition fees and then accelerated by Cameron with his direct funding cuts under the cover of austerity?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

You could also look at the revenue streams of top universities compared to 25 years ago.

Back then their core business was UK undergraduate reaching.

Nowadays, reserach income, commercial earnings and endowment from fundraising are bigger. Every UK undergrad admitted is a loss.

So, return back to the world where that income is at government discretion, and they'll look elsewhere. Probably not whole institutions in one big jump, but incrementally department by department. The better law schools, for example, will go grad only, or go private funded by the top law firms. And so on.

If your concern is access for the poor to good quality HE, abolishing fees will quickly turn out to be counterproductive.

And as for the claim this change is far fetched: it has been happening slowly for decades.

Not quite (scale in % - from Universities UK)

[Willow904]

Most US Universities are wholly private.

UK universities are also private institutions. It is just that they've taken their undergraduate fee income for UK students from the state. In other respects they're wholly independent/private.

So UK universities don't receive any direct public funding?

And no US universities accept publically funded students?

Private institutions, public systems. With complicated relationships between the two, even over the pond.

World class universities are in part world class because they attract world class students and I wonder how easy this is outside a public system. Without government support and investment in some form or other.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I agree it's unlikely in the near future. Beyond that though?

The comparison that keeps coming to mind with elite universities is elite football clubs.

Kind of backwards surely? Easy to get the best players when you pay them. Harder to recruit the best students when they are being asked to pay you

Good point!

I was meaning in terms of recruiting far more internationally and operating in an international framework.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm looking at Cornell here, just the first that came to mind.

Four parts of it seem to get money from state legislature.

New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (established 1888; contract since 1904)
New York State College of Human Ecology (established 1919; separate college since 1925)
New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations (established 1944)
New York State College of Veterinary Medicine (established 1894)

I don't know why those particularly and not others.

And I don't know if there's federal money too.

[SpinningHugo]

And no US universities accept publically funded students?

Most University students in the US don't receive public funding. Institutions like Harvard and Yale are completely independent of public funds. They're private institutions, with vast endowments.

[Willow904]

And no US universities accept publically funded students?

Most University students in the US don't receive public funding. Institutions like Harvard and Yale are completely independent of public funds. They're private institutions, with vast endowments.

I know a lot of scholarships are private. But all of them?

And I'm not convinced by the "independent of public funds" either, though the vast endowments are certainly true and enjoy government tax breaks, I believe:

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/study-i ... six-years/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Study: Ivy League Universities Received $41.59 Billion in Taxpayer Funded Payments and Benefits Over Six Years

In other words, the USA's top universities are expensive, elite and world class, because the government makes choices that enable them to be so.

[SpinningHugo]

And no US universities accept publically funded students?

Most University students in the US don't receive public funding. Institutions like Harvard and Yale are completely independent of public funds. They're private institutions, with vast endowments.

I know a lot of scholarships are private. But all of them?

And I'm not convinced by the "independent of public funds" either, though the vast endowments are certainly true and enjoy government tax breaks, I believe:

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/study-i ... six-years/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Study: Ivy League Universities Received $41.59 Billion in Taxpayer Funded Payments and Benefits Over Six Years

In other words, the USA's top universities are expensive, elite and world class, because the government makes choices that enable them to be so.

They are charities, as are UK Universities. They're private but not profit making for any owners. They'll of course be paid to do lots of stuff. But they can charge what the market will take.

I think that is what will happen in the UK. We'll have two tiers, with the better ones opting out of state funding, and the weaker teaching led ones still taking it.

Those believing in a free lunch will end up with no lunch at all.

[Willow904]

Most University students in the US don't receive public funding. Institutions like Harvard and Yale are completely independent of public funds. They're private institutions, with vast endowments.

I know a lot of scholarships are private. But all of them?

And I'm not convinced by the "independent of public funds" either, though the vast endowments are certainly true and enjoy government tax breaks, I believe:

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/study-i ... six-years/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Study: Ivy League Universities Received $41.59 Billion in Taxpayer Funded Payments and Benefits Over Six Years

In other words, the USA's top universities are expensive, elite and world class, because the government makes choices that enable them to be so.

They are charities, as are UK Universities. They're private but not profit making for any owners. They'll of course be paid to do lots of stuff. But they can charge what the market will take.

I think that is what will happen in the UK. We'll have two tiers, with the better ones opting out of state funding, and the weaker teaching led ones still taking it.

Those believing in a free lunch will end up with no lunch at all.

The better ones without state funding will be able to compete with Ivy League colleges with their enormous private and state funding purely on fees from overseas and wealthier domestic students? Or are you expecting the UK government to continue to fund research and the fees of domestic students?Because I don't see why they would if these universities opt out of the public system. I really don't understand why you think universities have so much autonomy to do what they want and what the government chooses to do has so little significance.

[HindleA]

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/government-fin ... ts-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Government finally confirms U-turn on free primary school breakfast policy


In a response to a written question issued during the parliamentary recess, Goodwill said the government “will not be pursuing universal breakfasts for primary school children”.

[citizenJA]

---
Most University students in the US don't receive public funding. Institutions like Harvard and Yale are completely independent of public funds. They're private institutions, with vast endowments.

This is inaccurate information

[RogerOThornhill]

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/government-fin ... ts-policy/


Government finally confirms U-turn on free primary school breakfast policy


In a response to a written question issued during the parliamentary recess, Goodwill said the government “will not be pursuing universal breakfasts for primary school children”.

I'm assuming this actual u-turn will receive as much attention as did the fuss over tuition fee debt - it will won't it?

[Tubby Isaacs]

This buffoon is in the Shadow Cabinet.

RSPB NI‏
'We are being robbed of the chance to see these beautiful birds flourish.' Hen harrier numbers in NI are down 22%

Kate Hoey‏ @KateHoeyMP
So more curlews and ring ouzels might survive now

Chris Williamson MP‏ @DerbyChrisW
The problem is Kate, bloodsports lackeys kill hen harriers, which as you know is illegal, so wealthy bankers et al have more grouse to shoot

The other buffoon isn't in the Shadow Cabinet, at least.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Are you seriously doubting that happens Tubby?