Planetarion Forums

meglamaniac · 27 Jan 2004, 20:27

Arsebandits, the lots of them.

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Jan 2004, 20:31

By 5 votes. But there's still lots to go. And it's got to pass the lords.

roadrunner_0 · 27 Jan 2004, 20:32

they were always going to win since that Brown guy backed down the bloody coward

LHC · 27 Jan 2004, 20:32

It doesn't seem that bad

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Jan 2004, 20:34

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3434329.stm

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Jan 2004, 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by LHC

It doesn't seem that bad

It's not that bad, but it's not that great either.

LHC · 27 Jan 2004, 20:37

Quote:

Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats opposed the plans, which would allow universities to charge students £3,000-a-year, payable when they earn £15,000.

wasn't that changed to when they earn £20,000?

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 27 Jan 2004, 20:52

channel 4 news said at least 2 tories were going to vote with the government, they wont be popular with michael howard

i hope my labour mp had the balls to vote against, he did vote against the war afterall...

nick brown is a total ****!

LHC · 27 Jan 2004, 20:55

If he actually believed the concessions were enough, he was right to change his decision.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 27 Jan 2004, 20:59

there were no extra concessions! the report which he is talking about is already underway and isnt even independent! he's scum, if only for the same reason they are all scum because this legislation is EXACTLY what they said they WOULDNT do in their manifesto!

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 27 Jan 2004, 21:00

and i never use an exclamation mark that much!

Deciduous · 27 Jan 2004, 21:09

How can everyone be so gay
gay
Tony is gay

Deepflow · 27 Jan 2004, 21:11

i actually kinda agreed with tuition fees.

much as it pains me to say it, tony blair actually convinced me on that debate vs his critics thing. And that stupid medical student woman sounded like a tard.

of course i cant espouse these views in publics, seeing as i am... a student.

shouldnt affect me though

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Jan 2004, 21:14

I think it was a wonderful coup for the government. It allows the professional debaters to have a field day over less experienced opponents, and changes public opinion!

LHC · 27 Jan 2004, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by nodrog

How many people who jump on things like "national debt/deficit = X billion" actually understand what the concepts mean, and what effects they have, in an economic context, and arent just operating on the logic "those numbers are big so Bush must suck am i rite".

Replace 'national' with 'personal' and 'Bush' with 'Blair' and you have what the majority of the arguments seem to involve.

I just found that quote amusing the first time, so I needed to say it somewhere.

Deciduous · 27 Jan 2004, 21:45

I think most people understand the concept of personal debt tbh

LHC · 27 Jan 2004, 21:50

I was thinking more along the lines of not knowing the real benefits of university educations. Like I don't.

Deepflow · 27 Jan 2004, 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I think it was a wonderful coup for the government. It allows the professional debaters to have a field day over less experienced opponents, and changes public opinion!

it was more the particular statistic that 5/6 of it are being paid for by the normal taxpayer anyway.

if that wasnt true (is it) id change my mind probably.

Deciduous · 27 Jan 2004, 21:56

As far as I was aware tuition fees (in England) are ~6000 per student per year, with ~1000 paid by the student/their LEA.

Paying an extra 2000 a year will hurt everyone except the unemployed and very low paid who will probably get their fees paid anyway. It's the low earners who just fall within the fee paying bracket who will suffer, as an extra 2000 a year is probably the difference between going to university and not for most of the children of these people. This sucks in my opinion.

Deepflow · 27 Jan 2004, 22:00

i dont think im doing any good with my degree... if i was the man on the street id be pissed off that someone like me was wasting 5 grand of taxes they paid.

the same goes for a helluva lot of degrees. Im not going to do anyone on the street any direct good from my degree. and neither will anyone else, even vocational degrees are LARGELY so that the people taking them can get money.

Nodrog · 27 Jan 2004, 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deciduous

As far as I was aware tuition fees (in England) are ~6000 per student per year, with ~1000 paid by the student/their LEA.

Paying an extra 2000 a year will hurt everyone except the unemployed and very low paid who will probably get their fees paid anyway. It's the low earners who just fall within the fee paying bracket who will suffer, as an extra 2000 a year is probably the difference between going to university and not for most of the children of these people. This sucks in my opinion.

yeah except they dont pay it back until after theyve graduated and are earning money.

Invisible Woman · 27 Jan 2004, 22:02

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Jan 2004, 22:03

It's not conventional debt, certainly. However, there has been misdirection on both sides.

Nodrog · 27 Jan 2004, 22:07

regardless of the other issues, can we all agree that exempting the 'poor' from this is retarded beyond all possible belief?

LHC · 27 Jan 2004, 22:08

If they actually pay it when they are earning, what does it matter about their background?

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Jan 2004, 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

regardless of the other issues, can we all agree that exempting the 'poor' from this is retarded beyond all possible belief?

It suits me, as I'll probably be classed as 'poor'. However, it's pretty stupid, because it assumes that your future salaries will be based upon that of your parents, which is kind of the opposite assumption to what they're making elsewhere. Obviously, with the upfront fees, this should be true, but it's a crap hybridisation that contains the worst elements of both systems, sort of like they have done with the a-level system. The blair government should really have left education alone. Oh, and writininonebigparanodstyle

Dante Hicks · 27 Jan 2004, 22:18

When I went to Uni I was completley exempted because I was classed as poor. I wouldn't have cared about paying it though if it had just been more debt.

But it didn't work that way (then at least). If I have had paid fees, I wouldn't have got any more loan to pay them with, so I would have been a lot worse off.

Nodrog · 27 Jan 2004, 22:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It suits me, as I'll probably be classed as 'poor'.:

You'll be starting uni before the new fees are introduced, surely?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The blair government should really have left education alone.:

They didnt really have that much of a choice, all things considered. You make it sound like they railroaded this through in spite of the noisy protests of the universities themselves or something.

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Jan 2004, 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

You'll be starting uni before the new fees are introduced, surely?

Well, it'll be changing from 2004, at least partially.

Nodrog · 27 Jan 2004, 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Well, it'll be changing from 2004, at least partially.

Yeah but thats only for students who start after that date, not those who were at uni beforehand (I think)

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Jan 2004, 22:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Yeah but thats only for students who start after that date, not those who were at uni beforehand (I think)

I'm applying to the LEA as if I was starting a new course, so I don't know what's happening.

It would have all been sorted, but the trumpeted 'Online application service' only works if you're applying for it last year, so it's pretty sucky.

Nodrog · 27 Jan 2004, 22:31

What does your LEA have to do with it? It's the uni that decides how much they want you to pay surely?

roadrunner_0 · 27 Jan 2004, 22:31

our LEA has just changed to an experimental system this year MrL, and i know a few ppl who have had problems with them

be warned

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Jan 2004, 22:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

What does your LEA have to do with it? It's the uni that decides how much they want you to pay surely?

Good point. It'll be the up front, probably. I'd prefer the other one though.

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Jan 2004, 22:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

our LEA has just changed to an experimental system this year MrL, and i know a few ppl who have had problems with them

be warned

LEA's are meant to be rubbish though.

roadrunner_0 · 27 Jan 2004, 22:36

yes, but ours has been especially rubbish this year, as i said, they have just changed to an 'experimental' new system

Jammers · 27 Jan 2004, 23:54

We need an independant England to ensure that Tony Blair can never use his foreign mercenaries against us again.

roadrunner_0 · 27 Jan 2004, 23:57

with a bit of luck, the hutton report will **** blair up good and proper tomorrow anyway

NEWSBOT3 · 28 Jan 2004, 00:30

under their new tuition fee plans i will be 3.5k a year BETTER OFF than i am now.

object ? hell no.

Deciduous · 28 Jan 2004, 00:56

Well I'll be out of the system soon enough and I honestly do not give a toss how much I owe as long as I have enough to get by on.
It's a good job really since I owe a shitload.

Luckeh!!!! · 28 Jan 2004, 01:11

I don't think it should have gone through, Mr. Blair should have abandoned it since he won by such a small number. Its unpopular and would just lead to more trouble.

G_frog · 28 Jan 2004, 01:13

This measure may help solve the funding crisis on the horizon, but the sources of problems with the UK system are structural and social at the moment, not financial, and this bill doesn't correct that.

By that I mean - having a one-size-fits-all higher education policy, having crappy secondary education, universities not understanding how to create their own income, a general failure to link with industry, and a research structure/career path for academics that could be much improved.

Radical Edward · 28 Jan 2004, 07:02

what giles said. plus there are too many shit degree courses.

Deffeh · 28 Jan 2004, 09:17

i think the use of scottish mp's is embarrassing

ChubbyChecker · 28 Jan 2004, 10:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

regardless of the other issues, can we all agree that exempting the 'poor' from this is retarded beyond all possible belief?

Indeed.

But that is just another example of Tony having to pander to the crazy communists in his party who would not be in a position of power in the first place if it weren't for him.

Dante Hicks · 28 Jan 2004, 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

But that is just another example of Tony having to pander to the crazy communists in his party who would not be in a position of power in the first place if it weren't for him.

Well, consider they enact almost no policy I don't think they are in a position of power. And if you mean "they're MPs!" most of the slightly more lefty Labour MPs are in safish seats anyway.

But there are no Communists in the Labour party. Jeremy Corbyn is OK though.

roadrunner_0 · 28 Jan 2004, 11:03

if there were, surely it would be the communist party?

Radical Edward · 28 Jan 2004, 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

The whole fees thing works out as a tax on the slightly well off, so I have no problem with it at all, especially since its' nothing up front which was different in my day (yesterday). As for the help to the poor, I think the reason for that was that if you are middle class your parents could theoretically pay your fees up front for you, where as poor families could not. However it is somewhat illogical on tha part of the government.

no, surely these top up fees are a tax on the well off who also have well off parents? If the whole thing is to be paid off afterwards, then why the heck to people with poor parents get let off?

Dante Hicks · 28 Jan 2004, 11:23

There have been Communists in the Labour Party. There still are. But not MP's.

There have also been Communist Party MPs. But not in some time.

Radical Edward · 28 Jan 2004, 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Becasue the repayments are for student loans, richar kids may not withdraw the same quantity of student loan as poorer kids. Poorer kids therefore have to pay affectively higher taxes, after graduation this may be a disincentive.

these repayments are for the top up fees though, not loans, right? which you don't start paying for until you earn plenty money. As far as disincentives go, it seems a bit crazy, since without a degree, what choice would they have anyway? If anything, the people who this provides a disincentive to, will be the people doing pointless degrees for pointless reasons (though this problem could equally be dealt with by slashing the number of university places)