Jump to content
Stuart H

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Re: The Politics Thread

Only just seen this thread and I wanted to add my two cents to the tuition fees debate:

For starters' date=' I want to put this out there - the increase in tuition fees is too severe. However, I support the notion 100%. Why so? Well, I am currently undergoing my final year at Sheffield Hallam University, where I am studying Architectural Technology. During the recession, the building trade was royally crucified with redundancies becoming ten a penny across the country. I know this for a fact as, despite sending out what felt like one million applications last year for my year out in inudstry, I got zero positive feedback. Indeed, only 2-3 members of my course were able to fulfil a full 36-week placement, and I don't even think they were paid. The brutal fact of the matter is, that when I have completed my degree next summer, I shall be contesting 50+ graduates for every job I apply for.

Now, of course, the recession itself has caused a lot of this unrest, yet the thousands upon thousands of students who are coming out of university every single year only compound the misery I am no doubt bound to face. The previous Labour governments sent out a highly positive message over the past 10-15 years by greeting every student coming out of sixth form or college with the opportunity to go to university, but the fact of the matter is that there are too many graduates vying for too few jobs.

[b']So, how do we decrease the number of graduates? We increase tuition fees. Pure logic can see the consequences: you increase tutition fees, meaning less students apply to university; less students apply to university, meaning less graduates come out of university; less graduates come out of university, meaning there is less competition for jobs; less competition for jobs, means that the degrees that are now deemed largely worthless (2:2's, some 2:1's) are actually useful.

"But what about those who still wish to go to university but can't afford it?" Nobody can't afford to go to university. When you apply for university, you apply for two loans; one to cover your tution fees and one to cover your living expenses. I see no reason to suggest that the increase in tuition fees will all of a sudden force the Student Loans Company from denying "poor" people the right to apply for a loan. Somebody, please correct me if I'm wrong here, because by my reckoning, there is not a single soul in this country coming out of sixth form or college who can't afford to go to university. That argument is null and void.[/b]

"But what about all the debt you acquire when you graduate?" Brutal answer, but you've got to accept it and live with it. There is no way of going to university without acquiring some amount of debt (unless you are filthy rich); it's just something you have got to deal with and get on with. Besides, the increase in tuition fees means that you won't have to begin paying debts off until you are begin paid a wage of £21,000 per annum. And remember, with less students applying for university, your degree will have a higher value and the liklihood of getting a well-paid job shall increase dramatically.I do feel for those students who shall be affected by these increases, as I had to feel the brunt of the last increase of tuition fees. But the key thing is to remain philosophical and concentrate on working hard, getting a good degree that will lead to a good job.

----------------------------------------------------

A couple of side points:

1. Like I mentioned before, I do think the increase is too severe - to virtually treble the tuition fees is rather drastic. Personally, considering we are coming out of the worst recession the country's ever experienced (?), we should be taking other measures to get out of the hole we're in. The banks, who hold a huge portion of the blame on their shoulders for the world being in this dire situation in the first place, should be punished in some way or another. I'm not well read in the political world as much as most others, so I can't suggest anything completely forthright, although the last I heard, Osbourse was going to go soft on the banks (that was a week or two bank, mind).

Also, and I know many wouldn't be in favour of this, but I'd raise taxes. The recent cuts have been devestating to so many people, as well as forcing local councils to review their spending nationwide (among other points). For example, I read that one council (can't remember where) was planning to close a large proportion of libraries in the area, which is a terrible move. If we raised taxes, things like this wouldn't have to happen. Even an extra 2p in the pound, and more for high-earners (£50,000+) and the government would have a lot more at their disposal.

Point is, moves to affect those that aren't likely to feel the heat from the recession's fire as much as Joe Bloggs, means people like Joe and his mates won't lose his job etc.

*I'd also abolish Trident for the time being, but that's a touchy subject.

2. Secondly, I've been dismayed with the negative press that the Lib Dems have been receiving. Of course, going back on their pledge to resist any increase in tuition fees is a disastrous party move and one that will anger a large proportion of their voters, I understand that. But other than that, I fail to see how they can be held responsible for as much as they are being accused of. People seem to be forgetting that it's the Conservatives in power, not the Lib Dems. Sure, this may be a hung parliament, but the Lib Dems have very little say in what the Tories pass through government. Jokes that Nick Clegg has become David Cameron's lap dog, and the such, are pathetic.

Like I said, failing to convince the Tories to stop the increase in tuition fees was a poor move after the pre-election vows, but the Tory-biased press is simply passing the buck with all the, albeit tough, decisions that have to be made.

Isn't there a bit of a contradiction in those two paragraphs Andy? If the student loans company will still allow poorer people to apply for loans,despite the hike in tuition fees, then why would would there be less applicants.

Also, even if it does put off a large number of people from applying from uni in the future, how is this going to help society? There are currently nearly 2.5 million people who are unemployed in the UK. What is going to happen to all these people who decide they don't want to go to uni anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

Isn't there a bit of a contradiction in those two paragraphs Andy? If the student loans company will still allow poorer people to apply for loans' date='despite the hike in tuition fees, then why would would there be less applicants.

Also, even if it does put off a large number of people from applying from uni in the future, how is this going to help society? There are currently nearly 2.5 million people who are unemployed in the UK. What is going to happen to all these people who decide they don't want to go to uni anymore?

[/font']

I suppose the argument would be that those on the fence about going and more likely to drop out or come out with a lower classification will have more reasons to question their decisions now. About 15,000 more reasons by my count. For what it's worth this is actually an area where my opinion slightly differs, I don't think we'll see a massive drop in Uni attendance once the fees come in, but then only time will tell I suppose.

The second paragraph is where I'm massively in agreement with a point Stuart has made a couple of times, secondary education and the choices presented to those at the thick end of it desperately needs reforming. A lot of people simply go on to Uni because it's presented to them as the optimal choice, irrespective of whether it suits their skill set. I don't know whether the reforms Michael Gove has put forward will go some way toward achieving this or not, but in fairness there are some very progressive, liberal changes he's suggested amongst them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

"But what about those who still wish to go to university but can't afford it?" Nobody can't afford to go to university. When you apply for university' date=' you apply for two loans; one to cover your tution fees and one to cover your living expenses. I see no reason to suggest that the increase in tuition fees will all of a sudden force the Student Loans Company from denying "poor" people the right to apply for a loan. Somebody, please correct me if I'm wrong here, because by my reckoning, there is not a single soul in this country coming out of sixth form or college who can't afford to go to university. That argument is null and void.[/quote']

I disagree with the above. I'm at uni doing a very academic subject but if I had to pay £9k a year to do it I'd be seriously reconsidering. We're going to be saddled with ridiculous debts anyway after graduation. The next generation is going to have several times what we had. University will become a playground for the rich whose parents can afford to pay the tuition fees and they won't worry any more than they would under the current system. Do we really want the richest people doing degrees rather than the best people though? Of course, then you get the people who're funded through uni with grants and bursaries so the government get brownie points for helping the less well off. They get disillusioned by living in the rich kids world and start to shun university and move on after school with the middle class kids. Then you get too few applicants and the thing will go full circle back to the current climate.

Raising prices is one effective way of cutting applicants but is it the right way? I, and most I assume, would far rather that universities were far more selective when choosing students (better grading) and that graduates were taxed for the education they received. End result is the government get the same cut in their pockets and the standard of education and graduate is far better. You also lose the people going off to do pretty pointless degrees in areas they won't use in later life simply because they need a degree under their belt to get anywhere in the workplace. RoKo's spot on when he says you need at least a 2.1 to work in the area you want to. The job market is simply saturated with graduates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

On Wednesday, MSP Margo McDonald's bid to legalise assisted suicide in Scotland was defeated by a margin of of five votes to one(85-16)

I was quite suprised at the large number in opposition to the bill especially as British is believed to be such a secular state. While there is obviously more than just religious reasons to be against assisted suicide, like how it will affect the doctor-patient relationship etc, I still find it a bit odd why so many would be against the decision to end a person's life if they were terminally ill and were in constant pain.

Anyway, although it is a touchy subject, I just wondered what other people's views are on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

While that is certainly true everything I've seen and heard suggests there is fault with both sides here.

Simon Hughes is a spineless fence sitter then. I have far less respect for him than those that voted to push the legislation through frankly, abstaining is gutless.

On the plus side QT should be good tonight. Think Charlie Kennedy is on isn't he? Pretty sure he will have voted against, should be interesting to see him and presumably a Labour MP up against (hopefully) a cabinet minister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

So' date=' the tuition fees cap has been increased to £9,000 while the basic level of fees has been set at £6,000 :mad:

Best get into uni this year then :([/quote']

Not quite. As I understand it universities can still charge whatever they like, some additional malarkey comes in at £6,000pa to give fair access to poorer students which probably won't be adhered to or enforced. Uni's can only charge the maximum £9,000pa in 'exceptional circumstances'. Nice and vague that :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

I'm playing devil's advocate here because it's not something I necessarily agree with' date=' but the IMF report suggests you might actually be better served going [i']after[/i] the fee rise.

Example-

feesrepayment.jpg

True but that means you have the debt for longer and there are penalties for exceeding those set amounts which seems ridiculous. It's also a bigger strain on students' parents who often try and cover some of the loan themselves to take a chunk off what their children have to pay back. I'd much much rather have less debt and be forced to pay more of it off each month...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

True but that means you have the debt for longer and there are penalties for exceeding those set amounts which seems ridiculous. It's also a bigger strain on students' parents who often try and cover some of the loan themselves to take a chunk off what their children have to pay back. I'd much much rather have less debt and be forced to pay more of it off each month...

Meh. I'm not all that moved by any of that unfortunately. The parents thing just doesn't bother me in the slightest' date=' if they're that concerned then pay for lodging or textbooks or food or any of the other litany of expenses that the (improved) maintenance grant is meant to pay for and allow them to bank that. We'll have to wait and see on the penalties but they sound subject to a lot of clauses. The fact that there [i']might[/i] be a levy on repayments over a certain threshold or early repayments by those in well paying jobs suggests to me it's a measure to stop the better off paying their loans off very early.

Still wouldn't have voted for it, mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

On Wednesday' date=' MSP Margo McDonald's bid to legalise assisted suicide in Scotland was defeated by a margin of of five votes to one(85-16)

I was quite suprised at the large number in opposition to the bill especially as British is believed to be such a secular state. While there is obviously more than just religious reasons to be against assisted suicide, like how it will affect the doctor-patient relationship etc, I still find it a bit odd why so many would be against the decision to end a person's life if they were terminally ill and were in constant pain.

Anyway, although it is a touchy subject, I just wondered what other people's views are on this subject.[/font']

maggie_thatcher_40x40.jpg Baroness Thatcher says..... As you suggest it’s a touchy subject Pat. Personally in the past I have always advocated the individuals right to die, but as I have grown older my views have slowly changed. The argument for putting someone out of the misery ( crude term but accurate) is a powerful one, anyone who has watched someone dieing slowly and in pain would naturally be tempted to want to put an end to their suffering, i wanted to with my Father. Whilst acknowledging religious sentiment surrounding death, I am not sure it should be allowed to cloud the debate, (sadly perhaps ?) the UK is far to diverse for that now. My worries are instead rooted elsewhere. The benefit (?) of growing ancient has taught me how society has grown increasing liberal / tolerant to change. In my 40 years I cannot fail to notice how just how much attitudes to relationships, work, the old, race, the disabled, children, and authority (to name but a few) has altered. Don’t get me wrong much of this change is to be embraced and welcomed but equally some of it less so. I am unsure quite how the pro Euthanasia argument fits into this, are we not risking entering onto a well meaning slippery slope that in time may start trends that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted ?. Whatever guidelines and boundaries that are set now to ensure the value of human life could be altered in the future and what then of the disabled, the elderly , the mentally ill. Could we as a society then start to look at these groups in a different light?…it’s a difficult one alright.

SVpN312hYgU

Soylent Green anyone ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

AT LAST

article-1337954-02E037BC0000044D-419_468x286.jpg

maggie_thatcher_40x40.jpgBaroness Thatcher says..... Hoo 'Bloody' ray after attempted murder, the defacing of national monuments, insulting the nations war dead, damaging millions of pounds worth of public and private property and assaulting hundreds of Police officers ...finally the home sectary has come to her senses. The threat of the use of water cannon on the foul students who are polluting the streets of London is a just reaction to their wanton violence and attempt to subvert the nations democratic process. Hopefully the metropolitan police will be given the opportunity to restore the rule of law and order and start giving out the sort of kickings these awfully well spoken class warriors deserve...rubber bullets next Please Mrs May B)

article-1337874-0C6E62B7000005DC-752_306x422.jpg

SCUM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

TRAVESTY

article-1339142-05208EEB0000044D-205_306x423.jpgarticle-1339142-0071F33900000258-976_306x423.jpg

Mohammed Ibrahim and Amy Houston

maggie_thatcher_40x40.jpgBaroness Thatcher says..... What the Hell is going on at No 10 ? a lot has been made rightly or wrongly about the Glib Dems dramatic U-turn ( or manifesto lie , depending on how you look at it of course) on Students fees. Rioting students have taken their discontent to the streets , but where is the outcry about one of the gravest ( I cannot view it any differently) betrayals of trust ever conducted by a Conservative Prime minister?. I refer to the shocking failure of the government to scrap the Human Rights Act. This foul piece of Labour legislation is of course part of the stinking legacy to the dreadful Labour years of government, and right fully was identified by Dave to be replaced by a so called Bill of British rights. I personally feel this manifesto pledge was of huge importance to the united Kingdom and like many grass root ( right of the party) Tories applauded its inclusion as a top priority for a new Conservative party.

So why ? within weeks of the General Election result and signing of the coalition agreement, was the pledge was downgraded and replaced by a commitment to a review, effectively putting the policy on the political back burner. What is at stake here is ( with respect to the student community) not only a breech of electoral trust it is a breech of COMMON JUSTICE. For example take yesterdays news that murdering illegal immigrant Mohammed Ibrahim has been ( under the act) given the right to an indefinite stay in the UK. Its taken me a while to calm down here, perhaps you might agree…

Ibrahim, now 33, arrived in Britain hidden in the back of a lorry in January 2001. His application for asylum was refused and a subsequent appeal in November 2002 failed, but he was never sent home. In 2003, while serving a nine-month driving ban for not having insurance or a licence, he ploughed into a 12 year old girl (Amy) near her mother’s home in Blackburn. He ran away, leaving her conscious and trapped beneath the wheels of his black Rover. Six hours later her father had to take the heartbreaking decision to turn off her life-support system.

But despite leaving Amy to die, Ibrahim was jailed for just four months after admitting driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident. Since his release from prison he has accrued a string of further convictions, including more driving offences, harassment and cautions for burglary and theft. He also met a British woman, Christina Richardson, and fathered two children with her, Harry, four, and Zara, three.

Border Agency officials finally began attempts to remove him from the country in October 2008.

Ibrahim’s lawyers argued sending him back to Iraq would breach Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees his right to a private and family life with his children. When the case first came before an immigration judge in June last year, Home Office lawyers said Ibrahim should be removed because of his persistent criminality. Ibrahim told the court he had became a father figure to Miss Richardson’s two children from a previous relationship and was even helping them with their homework.

This account was dismissed as ‘clearly not credible’ after Ibrahim admitted he could barely speak English.*The judge accepted that Ibrahim’s behaviour was ‘abhorrent’ and branded his evidence ‘contradictory and unsatisfactory’. However he ruled that he had developed a ‘significant and substantial’ relationship with the children and was acting as their father.*The UK Border Agency launched an appeal against the decision. Lawyers for the agency argued that there was little evidence that he was living at the same address as his own children. But yesterday the Upper Immigration Tribunal threw out the appeal, saying the judge had considered the case in a ‘legally correct’ way.

In short this stinking piece of faeces gets away with not only murder but will now enjoy the benefits of living in the UK. Personally I would like to see him hung ( seriously ), simply for knocking a child ( or anyone for that matter) over and then running away, after over 20 years on the road I cannot understand how anyone could do that ?. Obviously its very wishful thinking on my part, but If this scum can’t be hung, or put away gone away for 20 + years then my god he must be deported, surely ???. Are we once more as a people and a party paying the price for this ridiculous notion of coalition government ?. I for one didn’t vote for this anymore than the continual bowing down to Europe, the ridiculous liberal idealism of that toad Ken Clarke, the continued waste within the NHS or the BBC, Dave ignores the traditional values of the right at his peril and should remember he is only a tick in the box away from opposition. And on a darker note, this continual liberalisation of the party and its ongoing shift to the left may in the long term force its supporters into seeking out other right wing orientated parties at both general and local elections.

So where is Dave? or Millipede ?, or Clegg ?, the concerned Celebrities ?, the law lords?, and perhaps more damningly the WHERE ARE THE BRITISH PEOPLE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

So Vince looks like he might be on thin ice. With whispers of an early reshuffle abound as it is I don't think anybody would surprised to see David Laws as Business Secretary early next year. Appointing a more right leaning Liberal than Vince might go some to quietening the rumblings from the right-wing of the Conservatives for a little while as well.

Could be another pretty damaging blow for the Lib Dems though, if somebody like Tim Farron has any pretensions of leading the party in the medium-term he has to be on the phone to Cable courting his affections right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

VAT goes up to 20%. Seems like a pretty standard way to bring in more money without too much loss to the average guy. Don't really see what Labour are moaning about :o

There moaning because it could really impact the poorer members of society, particulary around things like adult clothes, fuel (gas, leccy and petrol) and certain foods. People will stop spending eventually which will impact more on shops and lead to jobs losses which in turn will become a roundabout with more people joining the lower end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

The more you spend the more VAT you pay...the poor will always be looked after its the middle class's who will suffer......once more B)

How dare Millipede and his cronies moan, before the election I remember creepy Ed Balls refusing to guarantee they ( just like student fees ) wouldn't put VAT up themselves. THE DIRTY SWINE CAUSED THIS MESS ANYWAY...:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

The more you spend the more VAT you pay...the poor will always be looked after its the middle class's who will suffer......once more B)

How dare Millipede and his cronies moan' date=' before the election I remember creepy Ed Balls refusing to guarantee they ( just like student fees ) wouldn't put VAT up themselves. THE DIRTY SWINE CAUSED THIS MESS ANYWAY...:mad:[/color']

Gordon Brown cause this mess in this country (both as Chancellor and PM), by not regulating the banking system harshly enough - also anyone that took out more credit than they could afford to pay back also have a hand in this mess - and of course greedy/corrupt stockbrokers/estate agents/landlords also have a part to play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

Gordon Brown cause this mess in this country (both as Chancellor and PM)' date=' [b']by not regulating the banking system harshly enough[/b] - also anyone that took out more credit than they could afford to pay back also have a hand in this mess - and of course greedy/corrupt stockbrokers/estate agents/landlords also have a part to play

Yet the Tories have obviously turned a blind eye to this. Bankers are still getting huge bonuses. I know plenty of ways that we can sought out the deficit.

For one, leave the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

VAT goes up to 20%. Seems like a pretty standard way to bring in more money without too much loss to the average guy. Don't really see what Labour are moaning about :o

Happening at the wrong time? I agree that its too sudden and too early, but everyone has to take the bite.

Camerons got the right idea. But he should be splashing the cash in updating technology. I know he's doing something or other to do with tech in London but its not enough. It will help provide better services and efficiently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

Politics is so corrupt. Article in the Guardian yesterday on tax havens, specifically the Cayman Islands in this particular article. Did you know that the Cayman Islands is the fifth-largest financial centre, home to over 80,000 registered companies, more than three-quarters of the world's hedge funds and with $1.9 trillion on deposit - that's four times as much as New York City banks.

Why is this allowed to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The Politics Thread

Yet the Tories have obviously turned a blind eye to this. Bankers are still getting huge bonuses. I know plenty of ways that we can sought out the deficit.

For one' date=' leave the EU.[/quote']

And for every £100 paid in bank bonuses, roughly 57pc will go straight to the tax-man in income tax and national insurance contributions. The financial sector is an enormous asset for this country which generates over £50 billion to HM Revenue and Customs. And you want to scare this away ?

Take away bonuses, and banks have one of two choices: pay staff less, and watch them walk to non-UK competitors who are willing to pay market rates, or raise base salaries.

Come on Jon go beyond all this naive Liberal nonsense and anti-British Socialist lies and think it through mate..

But I must agree about the EU, in as much as pulling away from the meddling federal vision of the liberal left, and back to a purely trading / defence partnership between European states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...