Bolitics The New Condem Government

[bickster]

I've kept out of this for a while because... well just because. But the other day the attack on Higher Education made my blood boil tbh

Labour are at as much fault here as the Tories and as for the turncoat LibDem **** Party they can rot in hell for me now.

I can't be arsed going on and on about it but Labour continued Thatchers attack but also used it as a way of increasing numbers and reducing unemployment now the Tories want to attack further again and saddle the intelligent youth of today with as much debt as they possibly can - I'm sorry but that is just fuckwittery on a grand scale. Can't help thinking the latest proposals are a huge home goal though, its hitting the middle income families the worst, hopefully they'll let the government know their feelings next time around (or before hopefully

Educating the kids of today to a high standard is investing in the wealth of the country, it is good for EVERYONE, everyone benefits AND they pay it back in increased taxes later in life anyway

If only these governments would stop going to war then they might be able to afford to educate the country. Stop supporting every **** military action the USA wants to participate in and invest in us, the country, the people. Political Parties are arseholes as usual

This is becoming like the rebirth of the Witches days, they banged on about quango's all the time, they attacked Education and "government spending". Cameron is just the illegitimate bastard son of Herr Witch and all his chinless cronies are the same. Shower of pricks

[snowychap]

Let us then elect emperor Bland!!

:notworthy:

:shock:

[blandy]

I half agree with that Bicks, but half disagree.

Someone has to pay for the record numbers of people going to Uni. Personally, having never been to Uni, and no-one in my family ever having been to Uni, why should it be me? I already pay for their schools and hospitals. Uni is not a basic need, it's a nice to have, something that gives people an advantage. So they should pay for it, they get the primary advantage from it. Yes society can benefit from some of the output of Uni people, but it's not a direct link.

Personally as long as people who genuinely can't afford it are helped, then the rest who go should have to pay for it.

Then it's just how - by loans, by a tax, by whatever. I think a tax would be the best way, after you've left, once you are on more than say the ave wage, you have to pay an extra 1% (or whatever amount) on your income tax.

People who go on to become City bankers end up paying back more than their costs, from their 200K a year wages, people who end up going on to become lab technicians end up paying next to nothing...etc.

The whole middle classes thing being attacked by fees for Uni. Better that than the ones who don't go to Uni paying for those who do, IMO.

I don't think a lot of the way the Coalition is going about it, but the idea that students end up paying, one way or the other seems right to me. Uni is "above" basic needs and shouldn't be provided by the state, for free.

[peterms]

Let us then elect emperor Bland!!

:notworthy:

This will be our initial Headquarters ....

No reflection at all on His Blandyship, but what a remarkably crass use for a nice old property.

[jonno_2004]

Let us then elect emperor Bland!!

:notworthy:

This will be our initial Headquarters ....

No reflection at all on His Blandyship, but what a remarkably crass use for a nice old property.

I thought exactly the same.

[TrentVilla]

I'd like to replace Osborne....with someone who knows what he's doing. Someone who won't cut winter fuel payments for freezing pensioners, someone who can come up with a fair scheme for child benefit, that kind of person - someone who isn't a member of the soulless, walking, undead.

So is this a declaration of your plans to stand for office or you ruling yourself out?

[blandy]

I'd gently prefer people to stop posting about me, and post about the topic, instead, tbh.

[bickster]

I half agree with that Bicks, but half disagree.

Someone has to pay for the record numbers of people going to Uni...

Its simple really, there are record numbers going to Uni because there are so many bloody universities full of people who should never be going in the first place (and that is Labour's fault). I mean there's a girl in work who has just got a 2.2 in Criminology and is now returning to do a masters. Not being funny, she's as thick as ****. Most degrees in this country aren't worth a shite anymore, a British University degree used to mean something now there more & more universities being created in potting sheds. Someone was talking to me about Luton University the other day, which got me wondering which former Polytechnic it was, or maybe even which old teacher training college, it was neither it started out as an FE college. What needs to happen is these degrees that seemingly get handed out like confetti need to stop, its insane. These former colleges have become Universities because they are then able to charge "degree prices" for their courses.

The whole HE system needs changing, radically. Sure educate the less able but do it on a course that reflects their ability with a qualification to match. And as these course will be more vocational, maybe employers can contribute here.

If they want to cut funding for something then they can stop paying out huge sums of money for the complete and utter bollocks that is the NVQ / VRQ system - what an absolute insane system that is. An NVQ amounts to, tell us about your job - have a qualification and each ones costs the government a couple of grand a piece if they are funding them (which is the only reason people do them). Take the Taxi Driving VRQ, what a load of cobblers that is. Lots of local authorities have started insisting on this as an entry qualification before you can become a driver, they cost a couple of grand if you were to pay out of your own pocket but if you've been on the dole for 6 months you can get funding. Before all this shite all you needed was half a brain, now it seems you actually need to be unemployed to be a taxi driver, its become a pre-requisite. Does it make for better taxi drivers? No, because all you get are the terminally unemployable as drivers

People who get a good standard of education pay for themselves over time Pete, the likes of you and I aren't paying for them, they pay back into the system through increased taxes anyway. What is about to happen is that lots of kids aren't going to go to Uni because in a few years it will cost them £30k plus just to get an education, which they will be saddled with as a debt for years to come and unable to afford a decent house and the problem of debt just compounds itself for generation after generation

Sorry its a rant, and its ill formed but its been bugging the shit out of me for ages

[drat01]

Mrs T pulled out of her birthday bash tonight at number 10, she's sick .............................. punchlines are available

[snowychap]

In honour of another visit to number ten today and the ensuing jocularity, "Why don't we terminate 'er?"

[Richard]

Mrs T pulled out of her birthday bash tonight at number 10, she's sick .............................. punchlines are available

Ooh let me try

An 85 year old woman is not very well and some people think it's funny.

Badum tisch.

Any good?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I have a better one.

An 85 year old woman getting a bit ill is headline news.

Badum tisch.

[blandy]

I half agree with that Bicks, but half disagree.

Someone has to pay for the record numbers of people going to Uni...

People who get a good standard of education pay for themselves over time Pete, the likes of you and I aren't paying for them, they pay back into the system through increased taxes anyway.

I agree with everything you wrote apart from the bit quoted. There's a big lag, so taxpayers now are paying for the increased number of people going to Uni. when the numbers of students goes up, it costs the taxpayers more, and the numbers, as you say, have gone up massively. 20 years ago we were paying for n students, now we're paying for 10 times as many (or whatever the exact figure is). Their taxes won't pay off the costs of their extra studies for a decade or more, let alone pay for the next lot, and so on.

That's presumably why the Gov't wants them to pay up front, or pay more up front. Right now the taxpayer is covering the costs, not the students who are getting the benefit. There's more call on our taxes to pay for non-Uni costs, so it's necessary for a funding change to be made, I guess.

Definitely reducing the numbers and changing what they learn to be more apt. to their futures is one way, though I take the point that education shouldn't just be about future revenues and earnings, it should and does have cultural and societal benefit, too - arts and all kinds of other stuff.

We are where we are though, and change is needed in the funding. I guess if you want independence of Unis from Gov't direction, then they have to directly control their own funding - but that's bad for students as individual Unis become like shops for education. If you make it better for students - via future tax they pay, you fund the Unis centrally, and they lose some autonomy and have to barter against each other for central funding - more like like schools, they are then state education.

I don't think there's a perfect solution, but the current system isn't right, either in the funding, or the sheer number of Unis and courses and students.

[peterms]

I half agree with that Bicks, but half disagree.

Someone has to pay for the record numbers of people going to Uni...

People who get a good standard of education pay for themselves over time Pete, the likes of you and I aren't paying for them, they pay back into the system through increased taxes anyway.

I agree with everything you wrote apart from the bit quoted. There's a big lag, so taxpayers now are paying for the increased number of people going to Uni. when the numbers of students goes up, it costs the taxpayers more, and the numbers, as you say, have gone up massively. 20 years ago we were paying for n students, now we're paying for 10 times as many (or whatever the exact figure is). Their taxes won't pay off the costs of their extra studies for a decade or more, let alone pay for the next lot, and so on.

That's presumably why the Gov't wants them to pay up front, or pay more up front. Right now the taxpayer is covering the costs, not the students who are getting the benefit. There's more call on our taxes to pay for non-Uni costs, so it's necessary for a funding change to be made, I guess.

Definitely reducing the numbers and changing what they learn to be more apt. to their futures is one way, though I take the point that education shouldn't just be about future revenues and earnings, it should and does have cultural and societal benefit, too - arts and all kinds of other stuff.

We are where we are though, and change is needed in the funding. I guess if you want independence of Unis from Gov't direction, then they have to directly control their own funding - but that's bad for students as individual Unis become like shops for education. If you make it better for students - via future tax they pay, you fund the Unis centrally, and they lose some autonomy and have to barter against each other for central funding - more like like schools, they are then state education.

I don't think there's a perfect solution, but the current system isn't right, either in the funding, or the sheer number of Unis and courses and students.

Some more thoughts on this.

Do we want them to go to university at all? Yes, for the most part. If we're not going to grow crops to feed ourselves, manufacture goods to export, or find lots more untapped mineral reserves, then we'd better do something which might possibly create wealth. Though Bicks' example of an ignoramus chuntering away in a potting shed might fall outside this category, and there are some universities and courses which seem quite poor value for public subsidy.

Do we need to subsidise students at all? Yes, because without subsidy the prospect of them earning enough to repay a big loan would probably dissuade them from seeking the loan or lenders from granting it.

Should we only subsidise courses with the most benefit to the country? I don't think many would argue that, though some would. There are some courses where it would be hard to make a strong case for subsidy, but then if they are so apparently useless, there's little chance of them being heavily subscribed.

If students weren't at university, would we still be subsidising them? Unless there's full employment, then we would be subsidising either them or someone who they had displaced from work. So instead of students paying £3000 a year for accommodation, we would be paying about that in HB; instead of giving them a subsidised loan for living expenses, we would be paying them income support. There's also the impact on the economy of fewer jobs for the lecturers, administrators, cleaners, catering staff and others whose employment exists because of students, and I have no idea whether the cost in lost tax and increased welfare payments for these people would be more or less than the cost of subsidising students - but it would be something to consider, on a purely economic approach. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't subsidise other forms of education and training.

I'll declare an interest, as a past recipient of student subsidy and a future recipient by proxy, but it makes sense to me.

[markavfc40]

Mrs T pulled out of her birthday bash tonight at number 10, she's sick .............................. punchlines are available

Ooh let me try

An 85 year old woman is not very well and some people think it's funny.

Nothing funny about it Richard. All things being equal the witch would have died years ago. Having said that maybe a higher being is going to now make her suffer much like the millions of people in this country did, and the many that still are, due to when she was in power.

[Jon]

Having said that maybe a higher being is going to now make her suffer much like the millions of people in this country did, and the many that still are, due to when she was in power.

Lofty from Eastenders AKA Tom Watt?

Peter Crouch?

[Jon]

This will be our initial Headquarters ....

No reflection at all on His Blandyship, but what a remarkably crass use for a nice old property.

It is a beautiful property, and one I would proffer befitting His Blandyship. I guess it's better to have a running shop occupying it, than it be derelict. There are other worse uses for it too, I would guess. My thoughts on a building like this would maybe be tea shop, or cake shop or some such quaint business. Yours?

[peterms]

I guess it's better to have a running shop occupying it, than it be derelict. There are other worse uses for it too, I would guess. My thoughts on a building like this would maybe be tea shop, or cake shop or some such quaint business. Yours?

Looking at it from the other side, they seem to have blocked up a window and put that hideously coloured sign there instead.

What I would do is get rid of the garish signage, reinstate the window, and carry on the black colour which the building next door has used. That would make it fit in a lot better than the current ugly colour scheme.

Personally I wouldn't be too fussed about what type of shop it is, as long as it's not something wildly out of keeping with the place. It doesn't need to be twee or pretend-Olde-Worlde, just not look like a colourblind child has been let loose with a spray can on a bad 60's shopfront conversion.

I think I'm turning into Prince Charles.

[ender4]

Its simple really, there are record numbers going to Uni because there are so many bloody universities full of people who should never be going in the first place (and that is Labour's fault).

I mean there's a girl in work who has just got a 2.2 in Criminology and is now returning to do a masters. Not being funny, she's as thick as ****. Most degrees in this country aren't worth a shite anymore, a British University degree used to mean something now there more & more universities being created in potting sheds. Someone was talking to me about Luton University the other day, which got me wondering which former Polytechnic it was, or maybe even which old teacher training college, it was neither it started out as an FE college. What needs to happen is these degrees that seemingly get handed out like confetti need to stop, its insane. These former colleges have become Universities because they are then able to charge "degree prices" for their courses.

The whole HE system needs changing, radically. Sure educate the less able but do it on a course that reflects their ability with a qualification to match. And as these course will be more vocational, maybe employers can contribute here.

If they want to cut funding for something then they can stop paying out huge sums of money for the complete and utter bollocks that is the NVQ / VRQ system - what an absolute insane system that is. An NVQ amounts to, tell us about your job - have a qualification and each ones costs the government a couple of grand a piece if they are funding them (which is the only reason people do them).

People who get a good standard of education pay for themselves over time Pete, the likes of you and I aren't paying for them, they pay back into the system through increased taxes anyway. What is about to happen is that lots of kids aren't going to go to Uni because in a few years it will cost them £30k plus just to get an education, which they will be saddled with as a debt for years to come and unable to afford a decent house and the problem of debt just compounds itself for generation after generation

excellent post/rant, and i fully agree.

in essence make uni for clever people rather than everyone.

[mjmooney]

I once won a £5 Pete Bland voucher as a spot prize after a race. Amazingly, another runner won a bottle of wine and didn't want it so we swapped! Result.