 |
| |
|
|
*End Is Forever*
|
 |
Salford, UK
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
Drogue,
quote:
Did the Lib Dems ever introduce tuition fees? IIRC correctly, they have never been in power, and thus could not have. |
In Scotland (where the Liberal Democrats were in government), there was a seemingly clear majority against tuition fees. However, rather than vote to abolish tuition fees the Scottish Liberal Democrats sold out students, went into coalition government, and introduced a graduate endowment.
Mike,
quote:
It's cutting services because it's cutting the number of higher education places. Effectively the same as if this government had planned a load of new schools and the Conservatives said they wouldn't build them if they got in power. |
At present, hundreds upon hundreds of graduates on certain courses leave University no better off than when they started. In fact, they leave University worse off than when they started; after all, they've just lost three years where they could be getting worthwhile training, or experience in work. The Conservative plan will ensure that such courses are curtailed, and an emphasis placed otherwise on vocational and other training that is actually of benefit to everyone.
University is not for everyone. University is not the be-all and end-all. Many people do not go to University and are still successful. A higher education policy should be based around ensuring that everyone who ought to go to University - regardless of background - does go to University. Only the Conservative policy recognises this.
Abolish tuition fees. Vote Conservative.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
It is called having a choice. Don't go to university unless you can either afford to do it regardless or you do a course that will get you a sufficiently well paid job to pay off the debt.
The people who really benefit from lots of students are those who work in higher education (otherwise they wouldn't have jobs) and the schools who can claim that x percent of their pupils went to university. Don't imagine that university is there to benefit the students!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
No, my point is that someone has to pay for it and I am a philistine who fails to see the need for courses in "leather studies", let alone turning out thousands of media studies graduates. Don't even mention social sciences or politics.
As for the rich kids, make sure they (or rather their rich, tory voting parents) pay enough to include a contribution to bursaries for poorer students.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
The Rich can afford to pay for Students to study, and it should be 20% of the population, not 50%. Those earning high incomes have usually benefited from Education.
and **** pensions, people should save money and invest in property.
Cheers
Matt
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Funny you should mention leather studies... someone explained to me the reasoning behind leather studies in Northampton (I think). The reason leather studies (unlike, say, sociology at UEL) exists is because there's a demand for it from employers in Northamptonshire. Perfectly legit course. |
Wow  Someone mentions my home town. Actually, there *used* to be a demand for the leather industry, with it being a major boot and shoe producing area, but that has died off much with the bust in manufacturing over the country. When CHurches was sold to Prada, that was the nail in the coffin 
quote:
Iain? Given the current budget deficit and the state of the world's markets, how will the Tories find the money whilst simultaneously tackling the pensions crisis? |
I know this isn't mean for me, but the answer seems clear. Cut funding of other things. The Tories think (and are probably right) that they can be more efficient. As the article said, by supporting fewer students, they have less of a shortfall. If they can reduce inefficiency in the police, the education system, the NHS, etc. then they can reduce the deficit. However, if the economy recovers, which it is predicted to slowly, there won't be much of a deficit.
quote:
Don't even mention social sciences or politics. |
So people shouldn't study economics, or politics, or any other degress that qualify someone to run the country? Yes, maybe fewer courses (turn the old polytechnics back to being polytechnics, doing vocational courses) and leave the other the same. That leaves over 30% of the population going to university, ~15% going to do polytechnics, and the rest going into work or other training. Then leave the other universities alone with their courses. While some unis maybe shouldn't be teaching social sciences, at some universities they are decent degrees IMHO.
I don't think we need 50% of peope going to uni, but maybe 20 is a little too little (as suggested by Rothy).
quote:
In Scotland (where the Liberal Democrats were in government), there was a seemingly clear majority against tuition fees. However, rather than vote to abolish tuition fees the Scottish Liberal Democrats sold out students, went into coalition government, and introduced a graduate endowment. |
Really? I thought Scotland was the only place where you didn't pay fees? Am I mistaken?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
The problem with the Tory idea that they can be more efficient is that no government in the last 50 years, of either party, has really managed to reduce costs. Reducing costs involves massive reform and job losses and no elected politician is really prepared to piss off that many people because they won't then be re-elected - so the money isn't going to be saved, they will just hope we forget what they promised to do by the time they want our votes again.
I don't have a problem with producing some graduates in most of the subjects that are available. My real objection is that supply outstrips demand. We have taken the idea of equality of opportunity too far.
On a simple level if everyone has the opportunity to be a graduate who is going to do plumbing and build houses, let alone drive dustcarts (yes, I know many of the people who do those things have degrees - but do they need three years of expensive education to do those jobs?).
Or look at it if there were 100,000 university places and 10 people wanted to be doctors and 99,990 wanted to study 14th century Florentine chamber music. We aren't going to have much of a health service that way.
The usual way of controlling demand in western countries is to control price. Education is no different but there is a big difference between managing an education system and making throwaway political promises.
Oh, don't forget that all the students interviewed on the TV saying this is great will be out of university and trying to pay off their debts long before it can actually happen. They won't get their debts reduced and many will feel "I paid for my degree and so should those studying now".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CerberusIV
The problem with the Tory idea that they can be more efficient is that no government in the last 50 years, of either party, has really managed to reduce costs. Reducing costs involves massive reform and job losses and no elected politician is really prepared to piss off that many people because they won't then be re-elected - so the money isn't going to be saved, they will just hope we forget what they promised to do by the time they want our votes again. |
However, with the amount of Labour regulations, targets and centralised interference, with some decentralisation, it could cut costs drastically. However, a few things, like foundation hospitals, are going that way already. But I think boht the Lib Dems and the Tories would do more dectralisation. I used to be a Lib Dem supporter who would vote Labour just to keep out the Tories. I'm turning into a Lib Dem supporter who would vote Tory just to keep out Labour 
On the other hand, I'll probably just go with it and vote Lib Dem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
*End Is Forever*
|
|
Salford, UK
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
Drogue,
quote:
Wow Someone mentions my home town. Actually, there *used* to be a demand for the leather industry, with it being a major boot and shoe producing area, but that has died off much with the bust in manufacturing over the country. When Churches was sold to Prada, that was the nail in the coffin |
We had Tim Boswell MP (one of the Tory shadow education team, and MP for Daventry which I believe is just down the road from Northampton) speak to us on Tuesday (the day of the announcement), and he used to the School of Leather Technology at University College Northampton to make two points; firstly, that it was an example of the Higher Education sector responding to employers and local business, and secondly that you can't identify a less-useful course simply by the name alone.
quote:
some unis maybe shouldn't be teaching social sciences, at some universities they are decent degrees IMHO. |
Hear, hear. There's a rather big difference between, say, a Politics degree at the University of York ( ), and a Politics degree at the University of East London.
quote:
Really? I thought Scotland was the only place where you didn't pay fees? Am I mistaken? |
Now this is where the Liberal Democrats have (very much) muddied the waters. In Scotland, as part of the deal agreed during the first red/yellow coalition talks, up-front tuition fees were "abolished" and replaced with a graduate endowment scheme. It was a step forward, but not by much! The Liberal Democrats insist that these are not tuition fees, and instead go into a "living cost" fund. Personally, if you're making people pay to go to University, I don't think it really matters what you call it.
CerberusIV,
quote:
On a simple level if everyone has the opportunity to be a graduate who is going to do plumbing and build houses, let alone drive dustcarts (yes, I know many of the people who do those things have degrees - but do they need three years of expensive education to do those jobs?). |
This is exactly the point the Conservative Party is trying to make. What is the point in putting someone through three years of a social policy degree at the University of East London only to emerge as a burger-flipper, when in those three years they could have trained in a vocation such as plumbing (and god knows what plumbers earn these days, particularly in the south!) and be doing exceptionally well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ChrisiusMaximus
|
 |
Staffordshire England
Jul 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
Ive been voting for 20 years now and up to 97 I always voted tory, mainly because Im self employed and come from a long line of self employed builders. My late Father always voted tory, even though he was very much working class, and I followed in his footsteps.
I would challenge the idea that the tory party is just for the rich and upper classes, I know many hard working decent people who are staunch supporters of the conservative party.
IMHO the tories went way off the path in the late eighties when greed seemed to completely take over the British public. The corruption and deception that was eating away at the tory party and society as a whole during this period was devastating to social justice in this country and I felt I had no alternative to vote Labour in 97 and kick out the festering remnants of a once great political party.
I voted Labour again last time convinced that given enough time they could improve things and they could still, but I see little evidence of real improvements in services being delivered at the moment.
Anyhow to the thread topic, you chaps that have been debating this subject thus far, would you consider my perception of the issue. I have 4 children ages 13,11,9 and 5 and though I say so myself all are very bright kids.
I am self employed Builder and doing okay, my wife is a Nurse and we both work full time. Now we are not poor but neither are stinking rich, and as I see it we are looking at a possible cost of 36K just for tuition fees alone if all 4 of our kids should choose to attend a university. Of course this based on todays figures so God only knows what the costs will be as my kids grow up.
I am really concerned about whether I will be able to support my children in the future and whatever the arguments of whos right or wrong in politics I can assure the prospect of not having to pay those fees has made my ears ***** up, and for the first time since 97 I am starting to consider the tory parties worth as a future goverenment.
Of course there needs to be far more explanation as to how this will be paid for and implemented but its got my attention. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:28
|
|
Sorry DF, I've been gone for a while.
quote:
Actually, the answer is that those things are natural. Taxes, though, cannot be considered natural, and thus are totally different. |
And if you get hit by a car driven by a drunk and are crippled for life, I dont think that can be considered as natural.
quote:
1)A restaurant is a place you voluntarily enter and exit at will. While at the restaurant, you can order as much or as little as you would like - you only pay for what you consume/use. If the food isn't good, you can send it back and get more, and if the employees are *******s to you then you speak with the manager and get your meal comped.
A government is a structure under which one is born, with no say in the matter. One may NOT enter or exit at will, at least not all that easily. In terms of social services, one does not get to pick how much or how little, if any, they want, and as such one does not get to decide how much to pay. If the services you DO receive aren't up to your satisfaction, you're pretty much out of luck, and if the IRS act like a bunch of dicks, then they get judicial protection without a lot you can do about it.
2)The purpose of a restaurant is to provide a good and service - that is, food, drinks, and someone to prepare and bring these things to you. This is the sole purpose of a restaurant. The restaurant doesn't ask you how much money you make, it doesn't tell you what pictures you can and can't look at, what you can and can't drink/eat/consume . . . |
OK, I see how my analogy didnt work. I take it back.
quote:
Your vision of a proper government is one of a government with many functions, most of them intrusive into your private life. The government, you say, has a right to know who lives in your house, how much money you make, what hole you stick it in, what you put into your own body, what political views you hold, and a plethora of other things. Not only this, but the government is supposed to provide all kinds of services to everyone, and demand payment for these services, whether they are or are not wanted or used. |
My government doesnt have the right to know which hole you screw, what you put into your own body, or what political views you hold. I dont know where I said anything of that sort.
Also, if you feel that taxes are not a good way of funding the government, how do you expect the state to pay for police, for road maintanence, for government workers salaries, the army, etc. And remeber what happened when the Articles of Confederation were ratified.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
reds4ever
|
 |
of the Spion Kop
Mar 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
Ive been voting for 20 years now and up to 97 I always voted tory, mainly because Im self employed and come from a long line of self employed builders. My late Father always voted tory, even though he was very much working class, and I followed in his footsteps.
I would challenge the idea that the tory party is just for the rich and upper classes, I know many hard working decent people who are staunch supporters of the conservative party.
IMHO the tories went way off the path in the late eighties when greed seemed to completely take over the British public. The corruption and deception that was eating away at the tory party and society as a whole during this period was devastating to social justice in this country and I felt I had no alternative to vote Labour in 97 and kick out the festering remnants of a once great political party.
I voted Labour again last time convinced that given enough time they could improve things and they could still, but I see little evidence of real improvements in services being delivered at the moment.
Anyhow to the thread topic, you chaps that have been debating this subject thus far, would you consider my perception of the issue. I have 4 children ages 13,11,9 and 5 and though I say so myself all are very bright kids.
I am self employed Builder and doing okay, my wife is a Nurse and we both work full time. Now we are not poor but neither are stinking rich, and as I see it we are looking at a possible cost of 36K just for tuition fees alone if all 4 of our kids should choose to attend a university. Of course this based on todays figures so God only knows what the costs will be as my kids grow up.
I am really concerned about whether I will be able to support my children in the future and whatever the arguments of whos right or wrong in politics I can assure the prospect of not having to pay those fees has made my ears ***** up, and for the first time since 97 I am starting to consider the tory parties worth as a future goverenment.
Of course there needs to be far more explanation as to how this will be paid for and implemented but its got my attention. |
What is the problem with students working their way through university? I'm not suggesting 60 hours a week down a coal mine, but 20 odd in a shop or pub wouldn't kill them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-05-2003 18:32
|