If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
BlairLite Tory leader's latest U-turn
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Shortly after sending off my university application today, I came across this. Quoting from the BBC:
"The Conservative Party has announced a U-turn on student finance and proposes to keep student tuition fees. Previously it had promised to scrap all fees, including top-ups being introduced from this autumn in England. On Monday party leader David Cameron told sixth formers that if universities were to be well funded, the money had to come from somewhere. In another change Mr Cameron also said he believed there should be no limit on student numbers."
Clicky.
Oh, lovely, isn't it? Labour's intent on clobbering me and the rest of the student population with huge debts, and now the Tories are collaborating to do the same. And we can't even ask the LibDems to oppose it as they're too busy tearing themselves apart. Blair doesn't give a damn, Blair-Lite, sorry, Cameron, doesn't give a damn either and the only ones who might do are distracted. What a damning indictment this is on British democracy.
What's a guy to do when his voice isn't being heard?
Doesn't anyone in Westminster understand that people everywhere are quite scared of the prospect of thousands of pounds of debt? I know the prospect terrifies the hell out of me. But no one seems to listen, and if they are, no one seems to care. :banghead:
I'm so pissed off over all of this that I've just sent off a rather angry e-mail to Tory HQ. I wonder how they'll justify all this...
"The Conservative Party has announced a U-turn on student finance and proposes to keep student tuition fees. Previously it had promised to scrap all fees, including top-ups being introduced from this autumn in England. On Monday party leader David Cameron told sixth formers that if universities were to be well funded, the money had to come from somewhere. In another change Mr Cameron also said he believed there should be no limit on student numbers."
Clicky.
Oh, lovely, isn't it? Labour's intent on clobbering me and the rest of the student population with huge debts, and now the Tories are collaborating to do the same. And we can't even ask the LibDems to oppose it as they're too busy tearing themselves apart. Blair doesn't give a damn, Blair-Lite, sorry, Cameron, doesn't give a damn either and the only ones who might do are distracted. What a damning indictment this is on British democracy.
What's a guy to do when his voice isn't being heard?
Doesn't anyone in Westminster understand that people everywhere are quite scared of the prospect of thousands of pounds of debt? I know the prospect terrifies the hell out of me. But no one seems to listen, and if they are, no one seems to care. :banghead:I'm so pissed off over all of this that I've just sent off a rather angry e-mail to Tory HQ. I wonder how they'll justify all this...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
removing central government from university admissions etc is the best thing ever, just have them right a yearly cheque and a semi-independant body doshes out the cash....
if anyone pays it should be industry.
Even better, why should I pay for your education?
I've never met you, and I am sure your a great person and all, but I owe you nothing. Take your hands out of my pockets and go earn your own damn money.
Um .. ok .. so where do you draw the line here though?
Because if you don't pay for other people's education, does this mean that your children should not receive an education from teachers whom you have not funded?
And if you are lying near death in a hospital, should those nurses and doctors that did not receive any funding from you step over your bleeding body?
Stop being so simplistic! :banghead:
Because there is a chance he will provide a service for you later in life.
As it is tough to earn money when you are learning, you probably won't be able to pay for your education. If nobody ever grows up to learn, how does society function? Where would the politicians, chemists, physicists, teachers and the whole lot be if nobody payed for their education?
To me it looks like you want everyone to pay for their things and you pay for yours. I agree with this - but how will the society function without learning students, public transport, roads and everything paid by taxes?
Chance would be a fine thing
I'm not at all surprised, the differences between political parties are just blurred lines nowadays.
What price a degree, eh.
The same way food gets to the shelves of your local greengrocer.
Which I will also pay for...
Which is why the suggestion is that you pay after you are earning.
Let me pose a question along the same lines. Why should I have to pay for my education because I have been out of schooling for 18 years, but a Secondary School graduate shouldn't?
Not if they are being paid out of my taxes they shouldn't. So it's a mute point really.
The next question I have to ask you is, who will benefit directly from this education, me or the individual?
If the person who has their education funded by me then decides to work in another country, how do I benefit? There are lots of issues which under pin this whole argument/discussion and yet which are often ignored. It's not just the superficial "how can I afford it?"
what the hell are you all going to do after you leave uni with your degree?
maybe i've been living in the hills to long but i fail to see how all these degrees are going to benefit many people at all.
I anm paying for roads and teachers etc etc ...it's called tax.
More people going to university is good, socially and economically.........
theres a shortage of plumers and chippys you know.
and more importantly, in the end if people don't fancy being plumbers then who are you to tell them they should be?
i'm not convinced theres anything like enough work in this country that will be wanting grads.
like i said ...i might have been in the hills to long.
Take a wild guess.
Yup. If you can't afford them, don't have them.
No, they could get paid for through my insurance. Didn't think to get insurance? They'll probably sell you some when you come round. Still not interested in paying your way? I hearby nominate you for a darwin award.
Which will be free, will it? Do fuck off. You want me to pay for your education, (which you have proven you don't deserve because you can't pay for it yourself. by the way) so you can get a good job and then take even more money off me from your new profession. I say bollocks.
I don't care. I have no interest in the welfare of imaginary entities. I've noticed that when you really want something you find the money for it. I've also noticed that you'll take as much free stuff as you can grab.
Doing something people actually wanted them to do is my guess. You think that education can only be paid for through taxation? You are wrong.
I have some news for you. Individuals in the free market came up with all those things, and the state, being the grasping bunch of thieving cunts that they are, soon jumped on board to dip their bread in the gravy. once the stae gets involved, you can expect worse service for more money and no accountability whatsoever. Oh, and violence, because that's the states only real trick.
Your argument seems to be that no one will pay for things you think are essential. now this means that you either think people are all fuckwits who need shepherding, or what you think is essential isn't to very many people. In that case, why bother with what you think is essential?
Only if there are the "right" jobs at the end of it.
{Edited out what I started because I can't actually be bothered ... } :yeees:
And thereare too many people doing degrees, its not necessary to have them for the jobs but compertition forces people to persue them.
Personally I think there should be a lot more HND's and HNC's and similer more practical qualifications rarther than just focusing on degrees.
You mean the employers will require people doing the jobs to have degrees because so many people will have them, rather than a degree being essential to the job. These same skills couldnt be learnt on day release HNC, or on the job training, or a diploma of some kind ?
Will they really require them though, or just specify that as a requirement because they can?
40% of graduate jobs don't specify a degree in a particular field, which to me suggests that they're not actually using the skills and knowledge learned on the course. I think a lot of jobs just ask for a degree, because enough people have them, so they can.
Bollocks. 4 out of 5 jobs might require a degree to get into, but that's just proof of the devaluation of degrees in general.
What a total fucking waste it is of the lives of young people to be learning mountains of irrelevent crap before going into jobs they could have done a passable job at on leaving school with a bit of "on the job" training.
By all means, trot out the half a dozen professions that actually need an extended training cycle in defence of having to spend sixteen years at school to learn how to run a fucking McDonalds.
But without media graduates, who's going to make the politicians look good?
I do hate that whole snobbery thing that you get though from people who didn't go to university. We all hate people who come out of uni and think that they know it all (who are few and far between in my experience), but I've heard of employers thinking that just because someone went to university, they will have no "real world" experience/no common sense etc. I studied film at university, and managed to gain many hours experience using professional camera equipment - something which would take years to achieve in the "real world" especially as I was able to play around, rather than just do what I was told. I can use this equipment no problem, but no professional company would take me seriously as a camera operator or even a camera assistant because it was only "student films" that I worked on. I have no problem earning my dues etc as this was what I expected, but some people seem to think that if you've learned it on a college/uni course it doesn't count, because thats not the real world.
Isn't that usually done by people who are already soldiers?
It makes sense to train people who are doing a job already as well as you can for that job. It makes very little sense to train someone up for years before they go anywhere near the job.
I mean, would you send someone to school for 3 years and teach them all the theory of being a soldier, and then, once they had passed the theoretical bit, draft them and start to march them up hills and fire weapons etc? It's arse about tit.
If you want something, you have to pay for it. Deal with it.
No for the reason mentioned, degrees on the whole are not about training for specific jobs, that is why they are different to vocational training.
Degrees are just as much about skills that can be applied to any jobs, better educated workforces are more productive. All of the most successful economies have well educated workforces.........
hahaha madness
you wouldnt be on a computer if it werent for physicists and mathematicians....
your plastics wouldn't have been developed if it weren't for chemists....
We pay for tons of people on jobseekers allowance/benifits, but we're not willing to pay for people who are willing to work and will benifit society in the long term. What really gets me is the 6th form students who get £10-30 a week each for going, even though most of them still live with their parents. What the hell do they need that for? I'm sure there's plenty of struggling students who could use that money.
Oh well, it'll only come back and bite them in the arse in 50 years time, when we have millions of people without a pension fund or any property, expecting the government to pay for them.
true
just because something isn't directly relavant to a job doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to do it and be funded by tax money..... the economy isn't the sole measure of how well we're doing
a well educated society that can think and analyse about things for itself is the best thing a country can have to stop despots