- Thread starter FamilyWiggs
- Start date
yamin
Member
- Messages
- 606
- Location
- Alcester, Warwickshire
I don't like them in that plastic version, but on the TV the other night they had them in ratehr attractive 'blown glass' versions, and they were sinuously aesthetically pleasing.....
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
Moo said:
Who Dave'n'Nick or the mascots? :lol:
yamin
Member
- Messages
- 606
- Location
- Alcester, Warwickshire
The Cyclops Coalition Party. Wonder if they see eye to eye???? :roll:
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
They're patronising, absurd, inane, irrelevant, grotesque, pointless, infantile and probably cost an eye-watering amount of money, to no good effect whatsoever.FamilyWiggs said:
But I won't tell you what I really think of them.
Feltwell
Member
- Messages
- 6,369
- Location
- Shropshire, England
Penners said:
Ohh come on Penners, that's enough about Dave'n'Nick - what about the cute little Olympic mascots??
I agree by the way - the mascots are bl@@dy awful
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
Feltwell said:
I agree. The only things that could possibly have made the 2012 logo look good!
What a waste of money.
Feltwell
Member
- Messages
- 6,369
- Location
- Shropshire, England
Feltwell said:
Well, today has proven that was optimistic.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,116
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
I can't see how it was ever going to be possible to introduce any form of non-free education without controversy. However, it may be my failing, or selective, memory, but I don't recall all this fuss over the rather more ground-breaking introduction of tuition fees by a previous government. Where were all the protesting and rioting students then?
Frankly, it was inevitable that tuition fees would rise once the concept of free education for all was consigned to history - and who'd have thought it would have been a Labour government to break that tradition?
What I find disingenuous is all this sudden new moralising about how it is fair for those who benefit from higher education to repay the costs - well, yes, but isn't that what has always happened through the higher-rate tax bands?
I'm now anticipating a future debate about extending tuition fees to A-levels. After all, current legislation only requires compulsory education to the age of 16 so, by the same logic that has given us university tuition fees, surely anyone choosing to partake in the benefits of any education beyond the legal minimum should have to repay the costs of that education?
I find it all very depressing. It's not very comforting to think that our children are likely to have tougher lives than our own.
Frankly, it was inevitable that tuition fees would rise once the concept of free education for all was consigned to history - and who'd have thought it would have been a Labour government to break that tradition?
What I find disingenuous is all this sudden new moralising about how it is fair for those who benefit from higher education to repay the costs - well, yes, but isn't that what has always happened through the higher-rate tax bands?
I'm now anticipating a future debate about extending tuition fees to A-levels. After all, current legislation only requires compulsory education to the age of 16 so, by the same logic that has given us university tuition fees, surely anyone choosing to partake in the benefits of any education beyond the legal minimum should have to repay the costs of that education?
I find it all very depressing. It's not very comforting to think that our children are likely to have tougher lives than our own.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Feltwell
Member
- Messages
- 6,369
- Location
- Shropshire, England
All sides have blame in this - as FF said, Labour brought the fees in originally. There were protests then too.
My fear is that we end up with what is effectively a multi-tier university system, with the top universities charging the highest fees and the "lower quality" universities charging the least - with less well-off students choosing on fees rather than quality & suitability of university. Students with rich parents are unaffected, those in the middle get priced out, students with very poor parents receive some assistance - although I am sure many will still be priced out.
Of course we've always had different perceived "qualities" of higher education institutions, the biggest marker in my day was the difference between a University and a Polytechnic. The crucial thing to me was that back then where you ended up was based on a combination of ability & preference, your wealth did not really come into it - some places were more expensive to live than others, that was it. Now your wealth will make a huge difference.
And how can the Government possibly justify having different arrangements for Welsh & Scottish students? Welsh students, even if going to an English university, have their fees capped at £6000. Scottish students going to a Scottish university pay nothing, but English students going to a Scottish university do pay. Is this not blatant discrimination?
My fear is that we end up with what is effectively a multi-tier university system, with the top universities charging the highest fees and the "lower quality" universities charging the least - with less well-off students choosing on fees rather than quality & suitability of university. Students with rich parents are unaffected, those in the middle get priced out, students with very poor parents receive some assistance - although I am sure many will still be priced out.
Of course we've always had different perceived "qualities" of higher education institutions, the biggest marker in my day was the difference between a University and a Polytechnic. The crucial thing to me was that back then where you ended up was based on a combination of ability & preference, your wealth did not really come into it - some places were more expensive to live than others, that was it. Now your wealth will make a huge difference.
And how can the Government possibly justify having different arrangements for Welsh & Scottish students? Welsh students, even if going to an English university, have their fees capped at £6000. Scottish students going to a Scottish university pay nothing, but English students going to a Scottish university do pay. Is this not blatant discrimination?
DaveBrigg
Member
- Messages
- 908
- Location
- North Lincs
Sadly, the 40,000 figure should have read 490,000.DaveBrigg said:
Our government will soon be in a state of war with the same people that has given them mandate to govern, but due to difficulties with coalition backtracking and necessary U-turns to cling on some power, the neccessary unavoidable cuts to get the country back on it's feet plus the cost of CIGARETTES going up and up a lot of innocents people (as in any forms of war) will be the victims.
.....TAKE UP ARMS FELLOW CITIZENS......OUR COUNTRY IS IN DISARAY...( adopted in my case)
......DEFEND YOURSELF....................
Well, dont look at me for real answers.
( I am going to order a gun just in case. :wink: I take my chance in this country, it would be too confusing in Berlusconi land).
Middi
.....TAKE UP ARMS FELLOW CITIZENS......OUR COUNTRY IS IN DISARAY...( adopted in my case)
......DEFEND YOURSELF....................
Well, dont look at me for real answers.
( I am going to order a gun just in case. :wink: I take my chance in this country, it would be too confusing in Berlusconi land).
Middi
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
The alternative view.
We're bust as a nation - Labour had a hand in that; as did the global recession.
Education was never "free" - we pay for it as taxpayers. it will still be free at the point of delivery - just like the NHS.
Graduates will now be asked to pay a contribution to their degrees, but only once they are earning more than the median wage - £21k. That's considered "good money" by the half who earn less than that. Those earning between £21k and £27k will be asked to contribute around £7.50 per month; about the price of a pint of beer a week. hardly likely to break the bank or deter access. The current system introduced by Labour has these same students repaying about 5 or 6 times that amount.
This is not a "debt". It does not count against credit ratings or mortgage calculations. It is a future tax liability - and a pretty small one at that. There are a number of concessions to protect students from poorer backgrounds.
The IFS reported today that any changes over the last 15 years to loans, grants or fees have not impacted on access to Universities - indeed the rate of growth in access has been fastest in students from poorer backgrounds.
In light of the IFS findings, and in light of the Browne report on Higher Education funding, the Frank Field report on poverty/welfare reform, and universities asking for the cap to be lifted in order to continue to develop world class education, this Coalition Government have chosen to:
a) invest more in early years and the Pupil Premium as a way of changing the life chances of the poorest;
b) ask better off graduates to contribute something to the cost of the degree they (and we as a nation) have benefited from;
c) maintain (indeed increase) the number of university places in the UK.
Having looked at the detail, I am convinced that this is more progressive, socially just and fairer than the current system. It is also fairer on all tax-payers, and by giving purchasing power to students, will allow high quality universities to flourish, whilst poorer ones will have to improve or go to the wall.
I wish the reactionary "students" engaged in violent disorder on the streets, had bothered to spend as much time looking at the detail of the proposals, as they have fighting the lefty-student battles of the 1980'sagainst "tory education cuts".
I also wish that the Opposition would provide an alternative to balance the Nation's finances rather than simply opposing everything. This Coalition is making 19% cuts across the board over 4 years; Labour's plans before the election were to cut 20%. If no cuts to education, then where would they cut spending?
Apologies for long post. :roll:
PS - Dave - the OBR have revised the forecast down from 490,000 to 315,000 over the next 4 years - partly due to better growth and partly due to the burden falling on welfare reform. You simply can't reduce public spending without an impact on jobs; no one has seriously suggested we don't have to reduce spending and borrowing.
We're bust as a nation - Labour had a hand in that; as did the global recession.
Education was never "free" - we pay for it as taxpayers. it will still be free at the point of delivery - just like the NHS.
Graduates will now be asked to pay a contribution to their degrees, but only once they are earning more than the median wage - £21k. That's considered "good money" by the half who earn less than that. Those earning between £21k and £27k will be asked to contribute around £7.50 per month; about the price of a pint of beer a week. hardly likely to break the bank or deter access. The current system introduced by Labour has these same students repaying about 5 or 6 times that amount.
This is not a "debt". It does not count against credit ratings or mortgage calculations. It is a future tax liability - and a pretty small one at that. There are a number of concessions to protect students from poorer backgrounds.
The IFS reported today that any changes over the last 15 years to loans, grants or fees have not impacted on access to Universities - indeed the rate of growth in access has been fastest in students from poorer backgrounds.
In light of the IFS findings, and in light of the Browne report on Higher Education funding, the Frank Field report on poverty/welfare reform, and universities asking for the cap to be lifted in order to continue to develop world class education, this Coalition Government have chosen to:
a) invest more in early years and the Pupil Premium as a way of changing the life chances of the poorest;
b) ask better off graduates to contribute something to the cost of the degree they (and we as a nation) have benefited from;
c) maintain (indeed increase) the number of university places in the UK.
Having looked at the detail, I am convinced that this is more progressive, socially just and fairer than the current system. It is also fairer on all tax-payers, and by giving purchasing power to students, will allow high quality universities to flourish, whilst poorer ones will have to improve or go to the wall.
I wish the reactionary "students" engaged in violent disorder on the streets, had bothered to spend as much time looking at the detail of the proposals, as they have fighting the lefty-student battles of the 1980'sagainst "tory education cuts".
I also wish that the Opposition would provide an alternative to balance the Nation's finances rather than simply opposing everything. This Coalition is making 19% cuts across the board over 4 years; Labour's plans before the election were to cut 20%. If no cuts to education, then where would they cut spending?
Apologies for long post. :roll:
PS - Dave - the OBR have revised the forecast down from 490,000 to 315,000 over the next 4 years - partly due to better growth and partly due to the burden falling on welfare reform. You simply can't reduce public spending without an impact on jobs; no one has seriously suggested we don't have to reduce spending and borrowing.
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
Feltwell said:
FW - yes, one of the perversities of devolution is that Scottish and Welsh governments are using English taxpayers' money to subsidise Welsh students more than English students. Ironically this is not discrimnatory in law - but has to be extended to other EU students to stay legal. Thus Polish, Hungarian and Welsh students will be subsidised in Wales, whilst English students here won't.
We haven't begun to see the scale of the tensions in the Union that this will generate...
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,116
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
biffvernon said:
An interesting chart. Biff. Of course, Sweden, Denmark and Finland aren't also trying to play at being a world superpower with a huge defence budget, nuclear capability and fingers in numerous conlicts around the world.
The UK has the third-highest defence budget in the entire world - in absolute terms!! - behind the USA and China.
Sweden, Denmark and Finland spend between 5% to 9% of the UK's defence budget, in absolute terms, and about half the UK on a GDP basis.
So that's about £40bn in absolute terms or £21bn in GDP terms.
Comparing those figures with the £12bn for the entire tertiary education budget and the £30bn for the interest payments on our national debt, puts some interesting perspective on this whole debate, I'd say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_education_budget_2009_2.html#ukgs30290
Considering their 'vast spending', I would imagine the Swiss and Swedes are disappointed with the results? A look at the world university rankings shows that considering the spend is low, the UK has a disproportionate number of universities in the Top 100.
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/results
The 'left' has always fixated on how much is spent instead of the results that are actually produced. Hence our current situation of indebtedness
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/results
The 'left' has always fixated on how much is spent instead of the results that are actually produced. Hence our current situation of indebtedness
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Indeed, Flyfisher. My lad's graph brings out some important points. The broad picture issues, that get lost in all the shouting and throwing stuff, are how much of GDP is it wise to spend on Tertiary education and what proportions of that spend should be public and private money.
There is a clear agenda on behalf of the government to push the sector towards the US model where private funding becomes dominant. That's a political decision - low taxes, a shrunken state sector, individual 'choice/responsibility'.
The actual student fees proposal, voted for last night, are pretty progressive in that anyone who earns less than £21k never pays and hence gets the uni education for free. (I can't see why anyone should earn more than £21k - they are clearly stinking rich and deserve to be taxed)
More important is the cut in public funds to teaching. It is pushing some of the unis, the Russell Group, to separate completely from the state. Some well founded ones such as Oxford and Cambridge could probably do that quite easily, others such as Bristol and Imperial might have to become much more commercially oriented. There will be a widening gap between institutions. It will be the American way.
There is a clear agenda on behalf of the government to push the sector towards the US model where private funding becomes dominant. That's a political decision - low taxes, a shrunken state sector, individual 'choice/responsibility'.
The actual student fees proposal, voted for last night, are pretty progressive in that anyone who earns less than £21k never pays and hence gets the uni education for free. (I can't see why anyone should earn more than £21k - they are clearly stinking rich and deserve to be taxed)
More important is the cut in public funds to teaching. It is pushing some of the unis, the Russell Group, to separate completely from the state. Some well founded ones such as Oxford and Cambridge could probably do that quite easily, others such as Bristol and Imperial might have to become much more commercially oriented. There will be a widening gap between institutions. It will be the American way.