The General Election Thread

[skier-hughes]

I have seen/taught many wonderful, bright gifted kids who have gone off to Universities to fulfill their potential and i KNOW that in the new order of things their families would have had little choice but to encourage them to stay at home, get a job and forget their aspirations. Its just plain wrong.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick in believing they have a loan to pay for their passage through uni, which they pay back when they are in work and earning more than £21k?

Why would poor people have to stop going to uni?

They remain poor they don't pay?

They become rich they pay?

What is all the fuss about?

 

[biffvernon]

Thank you, Gervase, for once again holding up the lamp of truth and reason in this dusty corner of cyberspace.

The government's agenda is to shrink the state, privatising tertiary education is one of the side shows. The Debt is used as a fig-leaf to hide the unpalatable. (National debt was greater in 1945 and we invented the Health Service and built a concert hall on the South Bank.)

Meanwhile, let's not forget Alfie Meadows, who broke no law but now lies in hospital after brain surgery. Will a policeman be prosecuted for attempted murder? Ha! This is England. He voiced his opinion about the government so deserved what he got, the baying mob cried.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/student-operation-tuition-fees-protest

 

[Flyfisher]

It seems to me there are too many chips on too many shoulders here to be able to have a reasoned discussion.

Where was all the outrage at 'social engineering' and 'keeping the oiks out of universities' when Labour introduced tuition fees in the first place ?
After all, it was quite obvious what the consequences would be.

All of the arguments against raising tuition fees can also be levelled at Labour for introducing the concept in the first place, but no, somehow it's all a nasty Tory plot to oppress the masses and deny them access to university education. For goodness sake, how about a bit of objective honesty instead of party political dogma?

 

[Penners]

if higher tuition fees aren't part of debt reduction, what are they?
Is there a move within the Con-Dems to 'keep the oiks out', and to ensure that universities are once again populated by 'our sort'?
It's the sheer bloody dishonesty that gets my goat. Why can't they simply say 'There are too many people taking on tertiary education'?
Of course it would be hoping too much for them to admit publicly that 'too many of them are from undesirable backgrounds, and the lower orders really shouldn't be over-educated,' but at least you'd know where they were coming from.

What a preposterous piece of blinkered, partisan dogma. Where's the benefit in excluding "the lower orders" from tertiary education? Are you seriously suggesting that the motivation behind the new tuition-fees legislation is simply to save the wealthy from having to rub shoulders with the smelly poor at university? Or could it be that it's a kind of Huxley-esque plot to engineer a social class of Delta-Minuses and Epsilon-Semi-Morons to do all of society's menial tasks?

Politicians of all persuasions seek ultimately to improve the lot of the entire population. Not, of course, for altruistic reasons, but simply to pursue popularity and, thus, re-election. In the case of the Conservatives and Liberals, this self-interest will only be served if the largest possible proportion of the population is given access to the means of improving its socio-economic status.

Expressed in simplistic terms - the more "toffs" they can create, the better their chances of remaining in power.

How does that square with the idea of keeping the oiks out of university?

 

[Pford75]

Gervase - you are basing your calculations on average national salary across the board, when in fact average salaries for university graduates are considerably higher.

The Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) produced their most recent Graduate Recruitment survey in summer 2009, based on responses from 226 employers, which looks at the salaries recruiters are paying their new graduate employees. The median salary for graduates in 2009 is £25,000. This data comes from salaries paid to new employees

If the median starting salary is £25k, then it's a safe bet that the average salary over time is considerably higher. But don't let the facts get in the way of some glimmered political commentary.

I suspect that not many in the middle classes can afford to stump up the tuition fees and accommodation costs for several children. I'm a 50% income tax payer, but with 3 children, finding £30k or more from disposable income would not be easy. But the point (mentioned by others) is that I would not have to pay itup front. My children would only pay it back (in installments) if they succeed in getting a salary of reasonable means.

Sounds like a pretty good investment to me.

If the government would offer me a sizable loan, only repayable if I get a £20k pay increase, then perhaps id get someone in to strip the paint off the house instead of doing it myself in the snow

 

[Penners]

Thank you, Gervase, for once again holding up the lamp of truth and reason in this dusty corner of cyberspace.

At last we have an objective definition of "truth and reason".

It's anything that agrees with Biff's opinion.

I must try to remember that. :wink:

 

[biffvernon]

At last we have an objective definition of "truth and reason".
It's anything that agrees with Biff's opinion.

Yep, I'll buy that one.

 

[biffvernon]

Where was all the outrage at 'social engineering' and 'keeping the oiks out of universities' when Labour introduced tuition fees in the first place ?
After all, it was quite obvious what the consequences would be.

I remember a good deal of outrage when Labour introduced tuition fees but it was muted by the background of rising funding for tertiary education allowing an expansion of the sector. The tories have put that into reverse. We now have a dramatic cut in public spending on higher education. The privatisation of universities is, in my view, much more serious and significant than the student fees, taking us down the American path. The fee structure is pretty progressive with nothing paid by the below £21k earners. Of course, as Gervase has pointed out, that will prove to be quite unsustainable. Expect worse in the future.

This is just one of the skirmishes in the phoney war before the real effects of living in a post-peak-oil age will bring. We will become poorer. The elite are currently entrenching their positions so that the burden of pain falls on the masses and the rich can maintain their privileges. This is happening globally, with poorer nations such as in sub-Sahara being squeezed out of virtually any oil use first, and within nations where we see increasing differentials between the rich and poor. The Scandinavian tendency towards a more egalitarian society is the safest model.

 

[robgil]

I have not read the whole thread guys but thought id comment from what i have read.

Keeping the lower classes out of higher education keeps the country running, who would work out factories , take away our rubbish and work in the re-cycling centres sorting out our recycle bin rubbish? who would work our farms? clean our streets? if everyone had a degree?
Holland were suffering from an over educated population when i lived there and have to import their workers to do these jobs, which in my book isnt fair on migrant workers.

Re the students protesting, isnt it strange that the royals were out driving around in a car that they never normally use? its just used for processions and the like so they can wave out through the big windows, and didnt they get off lightly considering what was going down that evening?
A spot of engineering going on there? i suspect so. What else were the media going to report on? something more important like the reasons why the students were protesting or the way in which the police became nothing more than a gang of thugs at times during the mostly peaceful protests?
Lets face it , our government dont like being told they are doing something wrong by way of protesting, they would prefer us all to sign internet petitions that never get read or write to our local MP's like a good little nation.

The protests are not just about the rise in tuition fees, there are a lot more issues going on here.

Any how just my two bobs worth, i dont really do politics as in my view they are all the same , useless, two faced liars who will say anything to get elected then totally renege on their promises, and anyone with the balls to stand up to them wont really make much of a difference anyway.

 

[Feltwell]

Can I apologise for bringing back to life a thread that should have been left to quietly die. This forum contains individuals that have strong and very passionately held views on politics, both right and left wing.

My intention was to merely pass comment on the Lib Dems "flexibility" on past pledges, I did not intend to re-ignite a heated political argument. None of us joined this forum to talk about party politics, the forum membership is a long way from being a representative cross-section of society and I do not believe that any statements on here will change the thinking of any other forum members. If anything protracted arguments just serve to alienate both sides and perhaps more importantly potential new members who may be lurking in the shadows.

 

[biffvernon]

No need for apologies, Feltwell. The only people posting on this thread are people who want to and the the thread title is suggestive of politics. Had the thread been named "Is this stucco Rococo?" or some such, objection might have been justified. Nobody is forced to read it.

And I hope people were suitably educated by picture #37 in the link I posted earlier. Toughened glass breaks in a very different way to crown or cylinder. Compare with #34 that shows the royal Rolls had laminated glass.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/12/london_tuition_fee_protest.html

 

[middi]

Nice to read that people on this forum care and have their own views on such sensitive subject such as education.

I personally would try to differentiate between students that want their " ology" paid for to work from those that have an " allergy" to work (regardless of qualifications) :wink:

Middi

 

[Gervase]

Make no mistake, the introduction of tuition fees by New Labour was a very bad move. I'm sorry if by saying that I burst the comforting party political bubble that some of you seem so keen to inflate, but no one party has a monopoly of right or wrong, and to take refuge behind old shibboleths is a sign of intellectual laziness.

By and large, however, my experience has shown me that the Conservatives tend to want to look after the haves, while Labour (in the past) have tended to side with the have-nots. Having been both a have and a have-not in my time, I can conclude that I can very happily do without the support of the Conservatives, while the safety net of the welfare state has been almost literally a life-saver at times of greatest need.

In party terms I have been a member of both Conservative and Labour parties - I campaigned actively for Thatcher as a member of the GLYC executive in 1979, for my sins, and was - admittedly briefly - on the PPC slate for Labour in 1996 (until it was noticed that Private Eye had written enough about me to ensure that I was too much of a liability for the squeaky-clean Dave Hill/Peter Mandelson-run party).

I do notice that no-one has attempted to attack the assumptions I made in my post and - most particularly - no-one has attempted to defend the scrapping of EMAs. Come on chaps, let's see the ideologues among you justify that! It would, at the least, provide some amusement of a Saturday night.

 

[biffvernon]

Always humbling to read the pearls of wisdom from Middi.

Meanhile I've been watching the movies, such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTgzwe34AP8&feature=youtu.be
There are plenty more.

And for you Daily Mail fans, look at this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1337655/Tuition-fees-vote-protest-Peaceful-protest-right-violence-loses.html
Ok, don't bother with Dominic Sandbrooks nonsense, just read the comments below. Even Daily Mail readers are getting uppity

 

[Flyfisher]

Where was all the outrage at 'social engineering' and 'keeping the oiks out of universities' when Labour introduced tuition fees in the first place ?
After all, it was quite obvious what the consequences would be.

I remember a good deal of outrage when Labour introduced tuition fees but it was muted by the background of rising funding for tertiary education allowing an expansion of the sector.

Come on - there was nothing anywhere near this level of protest when fees were first introduced. Perhaps you're right in saying that the stick was tempered by the promise of rising funding to expand the sector but where was that money going to come from. More borrowing? And even if money could be found, might it not have been better spent by keeping the sector roughly the same size and not introducing fees in the first place?


Still, while Feltwell has nothing to apologise for in resurrecting this thread, I tend to agree it's probably best to take the arguments elsewhere and leave this "dusty corner of cyberspace" in peace before anyone storms off again. I'm sure we'd all agree that would be a sad state of affairs.

Besides, 'tis the season of goodwill . . . . :wink:

 

[robgil]

To be fair guys anyone who takes politics too seriously really should get another hobby , not even the politicians take politics seriously.

 

[Flyfisher]

My last word (probably :wink: ) on the subject. Might raise a smile . . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV5SXYqGg1g

 

[Gervase]

Goodwill is spread thinner than Pentonville Marmite when one has a 16-year-old thinking about university. My daughter was 'lucky' enough to graduate with a first in politics from Cambridge under the current system, and she's just about pulling in more than £21K a year. Sadly she doesn't work in a useful sector like banking, so she doesn't earn a huge salary, but nonetheless a sizeable chunk goes each month to repay her loan and remind her that she should feel appropriate gratitude towards a society which indulged her so. At the moment I'm thanking providence that we live in Wales and that the Assembly has - so far - chosen to promise to absorb the extra costs of a university course. Given that we have another two years to go before the youngest heads off, I can perhaps be forgiven for feeling apprehensive.

 

[Flyfisher]

Don't let's start on the Welsh and Scottish assemblies! It's fortunate for you that Wales is so much better off than England that it can afford to absorb all these fee increases. It's a shame your eldest daughter wasn't a little younger, then she could have attended an English university without having to pay the additional fees and also benefitted from the new repayment scheme by not having to repay anything until she was earning £25k. Fortunately, her sister should be better off as a result of the tory plot to "keep the oiks out". Every cloud eh?

 

[Nigel Watts]

The Tory party would not have survived if it only appealed to a small minority of "haves". The "haves" may tend to vote Tory, but electoral success depends on the party's appeal to the lower middle class and certain sections of the aspiring working class. Providing the means to improve one's lot through ability and hard work are key to the Tories' appeal to these groups, and hence the party's electability.

Several studies have shown that getting primary and secondary education are the most important areas to focus on to increase social mobility. Labour and its chums in the NUT do not have a great record here, with the UK slipping down the international league tables despite the apparently unstoppable rise in exam results and the bucket loads of PFI cash piled into school infrastructure.

Getting students to pay more for their university education, with the poorer protected by scholarship and other schemes, will not be a bar to bright, ambitious youngsters who want to better themselves (there is no evidence that Labour's introduction of fees changed the social mix at universities, and the US manages despite very much higher fees for top universities), but there is a risk for the Tories, and an opportunity for their opponents, that it will go down badly with that key section of the electorate.