Actually, i genuinely didn't. All this just seems to be happening so.... easily :S

 

I've never trusted the Liberals. To me ... they've sat on the fence for too long. They could always say what they'd do (and people loved them for it) safe in the knowledge that they'd never be in a position to come through with those promises. Now that they can share that power ... they've decided that they were actually Tory all along.

 

To be honest ... at this minute ... I'd rather have David Cameron than Nick Clegg at least he's a Tory in Tory's clothing, Clegg is obviously just a Tory with a yellow jacket on! B*stard! And Cable's no better!

 

Kath

Edited October 12, 201014 yr by Kathyp

I'm sorry but I feel that those who want to go to Uni, and my daughter may be one in 4 years' time, should pay for it. Why should taxpayers continue to foot the bill? Also, why should those who leave education at 18, and don't go to Uni, and I know one, pay tax to support students who spend half their time at Uni drinking? :rolleyes:

 

I don't actually disagree with you. I actually do think graduates should pay most of the cost of tuition, because I do think it's unfair that people who didn't go to university should have to pay for the people who did. But the way to pay for it is to have a graduate tax, where graduates who go onto high-paid jobs pay more back and low-paid graduates never pay anything - not this flat-rate poll tax like system of fees.

 

The irony of this is that this report comes out against the backdrop of this Coalition government claiming they need to cut the deficit so that the young people don't have to pay off the national debt in years to come - and yet, they're about to increase the direct debt burden we have. Shows we can't trust anything they say.

I would do differently if I was in is position now, if you are a politician you should be thinking of the people, not just standing there while Cameron f***s the country up, i couldnt give a $h!t about salary etc in that position i'd be fighting for the right decisions to be made. And if Clegg wants to be elected again then he should get off his arse and stop going back on everything he said during the election, the future of the Liberal Democrat party is f***ed because of him now.

 

You're forgetting this is the magical world of New Politics, where nothing that Nick said a few weeks ago counts now because they had no idea of the awful mess that Gordon Brown caused back in May (even though, by the government's own figures, the deficit is actually about £15bn LESS than everyone thought during the election), and instead we're all going to be rescued by Dave's Big Society army.

I don't actually disagree with you. I actually do think graduates should pay most of the cost of tuition, because I do think it's unfair that people who didn't go to university should have to pay for the people who did. But the way to pay for it is to have a graduate tax, where graduates who go onto high-paid jobs pay more back and low-paid graduates never pay anything - not this flat-rate poll tax like system of fees.

 

The irony of this is that this report comes out against the backdrop of this Coalition government claiming they need to cut the deficit so that the young people don't have to pay off the national debt in years to come - and yet, they're about to increase the direct debt burden we have. Shows we can't trust anything they say.

 

I agree Danny. The highly paid graduates should pay more and graduates who still only get a low paid job should pay proportionately LESS. Surely that's the fairest way?

Anyone who has a Lib Dem MP and doesn't like the proposals should write to their MP to explain why. The more letters they get opposing the proposals, the more likely they are to vote against. If you're not yet 18 that doesn't matter. After all, this will still affect you if you want to go to university.

 

There should perhaps be more of a debate about who pays. In a lot of cases it is the employer who gains at least as much as the graduate. For example, anyone who wants to be an actuary will need a maths degree. When they get a job as a trainee actuary they will face several more years of studying before becoming a fully qualified actuary. However they will get exemptions from some parts of that training depending on exactly what they did for their degree. So someone who does a lot of the "right" modules at university will have to pay for them. Someone who does fewer of the "right" modules will do them as part of their training and the employer will pay. Indeed they effectively pay twice as they pay the cost of the training and for the employee's time when they are not doing anything directly productive. That doesn't make seem fair.

 

Or take another example. Let's say you want to be a hotel manager. You could go straight from school into a fairly low paid job in a hotel and work your way up. Again your employer will pay for the training. Alternatively you could do a degree in hotel management. You may then be able to go straight into a job as, say, an assistant manager but you will have had to pay for your training.

Anyone who has a Lib Dem MP and doesn't like the proposals should write to their MP to explain why. The more letters they get opposing the proposals, the more likely they are to vote against. If you're not yet 18 that doesn't matter. After all, this will still affect you if you want to go to university.

 

There should perhaps be more of a debate about who pays. In a lot of cases it is the employer who gains at least as much as the graduate. For example, anyone who wants to be an actuary will need a maths degree. When they get a job as a trainee actuary they will face several more years of studying before becoming a fully qualified actuary. However they will get exemptions from some parts of that training depending on exactly what they did for their degree. So someone who does a lot of the "right" modules at university will have to pay for them. Someone who does fewer of the "right" modules will do them as part of their training and the employer will pay. Indeed they effectively pay twice as they pay the cost of the training and for the employee's time when they are not doing anything directly productive. That doesn't make seem fair.

 

Or take another example. Let's say you want to be a hotel manager. You could go straight from school into a fairly low paid job in a hotel and work your way up. Again your employer will pay for the training. Alternatively you could do a degree in hotel management. You may then be able to go straight into a job as, say, an assistant manager but you will have had to pay for your training.

 

Seriously ... apart from all the friends I made at Poly (some of whom are still my best friends after 25 years) I doubt I'd have bothered with doing a degree. Knowing what I know now ... and if I had the time back ... I'd have chosen to stay at work and got work-based qualifications. I can't believe I actually gave up a pretty good job to go to Poly ... thinking a degree was the be-all-and-end-all. They aren't!

 

Kath

Edited October 13, 201014 yr by Kathyp

I'm sorry but I feel that those who want to go to Uni, and my daughter may be one in 4 years' time, should pay for it. Why should taxpayers continue to foot the bill? Also, why should those who leave education at 18, and don't go to Uni, and I know one, pay tax to support students who spend half their time at Uni drinking? :rolleyes:

 

Wow c**t

Anyone who has a Lib Dem MP and doesn't like the proposals should write to their MP to explain why. The more letters they get opposing the proposals, the more likely they are to vote against. If you're not yet 18 that doesn't matter. After all, this will still affect you if you want to go to university.

 

There should perhaps be more of a debate about who pays. In a lot of cases it is the employer who gains at least as much as the graduate. For example, anyone who wants to be an actuary will need a maths degree. When they get a job as a trainee actuary they will face several more years of studying before becoming a fully qualified actuary. However they will get exemptions from some parts of that training depending on exactly what they did for their degree. So someone who does a lot of the "right" modules at university will have to pay for them. Someone who does fewer of the "right" modules will do them as part of their training and the employer will pay. Indeed they effectively pay twice as they pay the cost of the training and for the employee's time when they are not doing anything directly productive. That doesn't make seem fair.

 

Or take another example. Let's say you want to be a hotel manager. You could go straight from school into a fairly low paid job in a hotel and work your way up. Again your employer will pay for the training. Alternatively you could do a degree in hotel management. You may then be able to go straight into a job as, say, an assistant manager but you will have had to pay for your training.

I doubt writing to Ming would do much as it doesn't directly affect me at all.

I doubt writing to Ming would do much as it doesn't directly affect me at all.

It looks like he will be voting against anyway. And it doesn't need to affect you directly. You are still entitled to tell him your opinion.

I fully approve of these excellent proposals, which will considerably strengthen this country. Universities should once again be elitist; the preserve of the upper classes and truly academically gifted. Those complaining they can’t afford the tuition fees will just have to accept career paths more suited to their background and means.

I fully approve of these excellent proposals, which will considerably strengthen this country. Universities should once again be elitist; the preserve of the upper classes and truly academically gifted. Those complaining they can’t afford the tuition fees will just have to accept career paths more suited to their background and means.

 

Come again? Are you suggesting that geniuses from underprivelidged backgrounds (yes, they do happen before you spout any of that crap) should be denied the chance to have a better life just because they were born with less money than a dense toff who got sent off to private school and will be coached to the ends of the Earth by daddy just to have a shot of Cambridge?

 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

 

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

 

 

I fully approve of these excellent proposals, which will considerably strengthen this country. Universities should once again be elitist; the preserve of the upper classes and truly academically gifted. Those complaining they can’t afford the tuition fees will just have to accept career paths more suited to their background and means.

So my Dad whose father was a cobbler and whose mother spent some time as a maid shouldn't have been allowed to go to university and go on to be an actuary? Forget the fact that he has a brain the size of a planet (as is often said about all actuaries). It's obviously far more relevant that his parents had no money. Forget also the money he was able to give to his parents and other family members to help them out. You would obviously prefer them to have tried claiming more benefits instead. Thanks for that.

I fully approve of these excellent proposals, which will considerably strengthen this country. Universities should once again be elitist; the preserve of the upper classes and truly academically gifted. Those complaining they can’t afford the tuition fees will just have to accept career paths more suited to their background and means.

So because i am from a lower class background i shouldn't be allowed to go to university? Even though i am deserving of a place?

 

You're scum.

It looks like he will be voting against anyway. And it doesn't need to affect you directly. You are still entitled to tell him your opinion.

Good old Ming C :wub:

 

Thats why i voted for him ^_^ He's currently campaigning to keep our local RAF base open too

I think/hope Ethan was just playing devil's advocate a bit there.. !

 

Chris also- using bloody clichés about students such as 'drinking half the time' frankly boring and lazy.. it is a lot of hard work at times, you will find this out when your daughter hopefully makes it to higher education.

 

Personally I do feel that far too many young people today go to university because they don't know really what else to do with their lives post 18 and therefore don't really end up benefitting from it, with many dropping out. Therefore Universities are now struggling to cope financially with providing for the sheer volume of students that are now taken in - this is a probably a greater problem in Scotland where the majority of students pay no tuition fees at all. Having said this, I am not in favour of the cap on tuition fees being lifted, as I feel it will preclude and put off a lot of potential future students from underprivileged backgrounds.

 

University should be an option that is available to everyone whatever their background, and those who are intelligent enough yet cannot afford to go should be given the appropriate help/funding/support.

The thing is Universities, DO need to change. At this moment in people, so many people are going to Uni, doing an utterly stupid degree, getting student finance/grants off the government that do not need to be given out. University is an amazing experience, and I am so glad I am at Uni. But the fact that you can get into Uni with DDE at A-Level is really stupid. Of course the competition is increasing for universities because of foreign students, and the Universities are already extremely greedy with the prices some of the Chinese students pay to study at the Uni.

 

Even though i'm in favour of a change, the price hike is not the way to go about it. Universities do not need to become elitist again, it's unfair on those who come from a poorer background, but who are naturally gifted and intelligent. Even for me at Uni now, it's hard for me, who is going to be in thousands of debt once I get out Uni, whilst plenty of my friends have their parents pay their accommodation/tuition fees. It is unfair, but life is unfair unfortunately. A lot of poly universities just need to become defunct imo, but that's not going to happen because of the uproar it would cause.

There was a very non-commital reply by Tessa Jowell on this issue on Question Time. That suggests Labour may not oppose this. Of course it should be remembered that Labour set up the Browne review and they set the terms of reference.

 

Vince Cable looked very uncomfortable making the announcement this week. At least he didn't try to hide the fact that this represents a u-turn.

 

Nick Clegg has now sent an e-mail to members and supporters asking for comments. There's a strong hint that he's hoping members might come up with a viable alternative or at least a way of reducing the impact.

I fully approve of these excellent proposals, which will considerably strengthen this country. Universities should once again be elitist; the preserve of the upper classes and truly academically gifted. Those complaining they can’t afford the tuition fees will just have to accept career paths more suited to their background and means.

Get out, you utter scum. Why should somebody being born into wealth but being thick as two planks entitle them to a university degree any moreso than somebody who's poor who's more intelligent than them? Do you have any idea how much your proposals would cost the country in terms of lost supply?

 

For somebody who claims to be intelligent you truly are the most ridiculously short-sighted person I've ever come across. Even the IMF (hardly a bastion of social liberalism!) says the UK will need a 40% graduate output in order to stay competitive with other knowledge-based economies.

 

The claim that somebody who can't afford the tuition fees will 'just have to accept' a career path 'more suited to their background and means' is the most horrific thing I think I've seen posted in this forum, and given you're competing against Craig and Crazy Chris on this matter, that's saying a lot. You truly are the most morally redundant and vile creature I think I've ever come across. Being torn limb from limb would still be too good for you, you arrogant, self-absorbed, silver-spooned wretch.

I fully approve of these excellent proposals, which will considerably strengthen this country. Universities should once again be elitist; the preserve of the upper classes and truly academically gifted. Those complaining they can’t afford the tuition fees will just have to accept career paths more suited to their background and means.

 

:mellow: we have our Craig replacement.

 

 

please tell me you are taking the p*** when you say Universities should be for the elitist and upper classes. why should people be disadvantaged (or advantaged) because of their backgroud, ever heard of equality?

I'm sure Ethan's heard of it, he just doesn't agree with it.

 

Why should those born without silver spoons be entitled to anything?