I think you all miss the point. Birmingham and others are not "retarded" as someone states.
Ask yourself this - pharmacy is about patient safety, not granting graduates full employment. Law has a similar professional examination and there are loads more law schools than there are pharmacy schools.
So, why should each pharmacy student, no matter how weak (maybe with a 3rd class degree) be guaranteed a pre-reg place? Should they not go to the best students? Would this not be best for patients?
Clearly, the law profession thinks this approach is good enough. For too long pharmacy has been a profession where students can walk into a pre-reg and, if they pass the exam, into a job. The RPSGB and GPhC are not silly - they know there is a shortage of competitive places for pharmacists and opening more schools will result in more students, and they will result in better pharmacists as only the better ones (like in law) will get a professional training place. This is only good news for patients.
Remember, pharmacy is not a closed shop profession run for the benefit of pharmacists. It is a health profession that has huge responsibility for patient safety. If some people on this thread no longer see it as an easy route to good money and full employment then they maybe should not become responsible for patient safety at any time in the future!
And this is all in the context of a recession and health cuts. Why should pharmacy be a little island all on its own, with little or no effects of the recession or cuts?
And, as well as Birmingham and Durham, there are a few other schools rumoured to be opening. The more the merrier...