Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
. Wow. Total idiot.
I hope the NUS are proud.
Rioting in London?
- Thread starter Gerard
- Start date
I hope the NUS are proud.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,272
- Location
- RG8 9
Proof it was thrown by a student?
As long as we're clear that the aim of this scheme is to stop people, particularly those from the lower classes, from going to university.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
No I don't think I have.
I was talking about Scottish Labour Party because I thought you typed Scottish Labuor party and I'll explain why I made that mistake...
So your position is that you claim that you have seen the Socialist Labour Party on the same ballot as new labour in 2005 and 2010 General election?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Labour_Party_(UK,_1903)
Given they haven't existed since the 80's?
You are lying your pants off.
And all varients of Labour = Labour.
They all ended up under the New Labour party.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,537
- Location
- London
Let's review
1. Everyone can have access to an education, it is a right and a societal norm to ensure that the State provides a basic education for its citizens (the compulsory education system represents this). Everyone can also access high, elective education - it simply comes with a cost - it is a commodity
2. The costs are what they are, those costs are deferred and may never need to be repaid if tehre is not an adeqaute income to support repayment. Where there is repayment then those repayments are made. A loaf of bread may cost more in one Country or another but that's irrelevant. It is also irrelevant that the commodity of elective education costs more or less in another Country. What is relevant is relative burden and affordability of this education in this Country and clearly those sums have been done.
Those sums reveal the need to charge more.
Simple.
1. Everyone can have access to an education, it is a right and a societal norm to ensure that the State provides a basic education for its citizens (the compulsory education system represents this). Everyone can also access high, elective education - it simply comes with a cost - it is a commodity
2. The costs are what they are, those costs are deferred and may never need to be repaid if tehre is not an adeqaute income to support repayment. Where there is repayment then those repayments are made. A loaf of bread may cost more in one Country or another but that's irrelevant. It is also irrelevant that the commodity of elective education costs more or less in another Country. What is relevant is relative burden and affordability of this education in this Country and clearly those sums have been done.
Those sums reveal the need to charge more.
Simple.
Its not as cut and dry as that, I would think in an ideal world most if not everyone would agree free education for all would be desirable but the economy is on its knees. Its not just students who are suffering, just about everyone is but what can you expect the government to do about it ?
They cant keep spending like we have been for the last 12 years or else we'll end up like Greece and that will be far far worse.
Those students are an embarrassment to the United Kingdom.
All of the ones smashing things up and/or egging others on to do so should be thrown out of University and put on community service.
Absolutely ridiculous. Morons of the highest order.
All of the ones smashing things up and/or egging others on to do so should be thrown out of University and put on community service.
Absolutely ridiculous. Morons of the highest order.
I hadn't typed Scottish. Please be quiet now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_North_East_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Let us see if you'll be man enough to admit you're wrong and apologise for calling me a liar and crazy.
+1
also no one can argue that education is not a benefit to all in society. it's called progrees and should be available and accessible. we are not living in the middle ages anymore, otherwise most of us would be ignorant peasants in the field.
EDIT: i love how sky news (and most other media) is focussing on outrageous behaviour by some and not the real issue at hand which is the reason for the protests. cops with sticks and kids bashing windows makes for good TV.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,272
- Location
- RG8 9
I agree in part, but what this essentially is doing, is stopping lower class intelligent individuals from getting the education they deserve and should be getting.
There are plenty of other places the goverment could cut costs but this will go on a tangent and I do not want to derail the thread.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,537
- Location
- London
Wrong
It may result in some people choosing not to go to University. If it does then that is a personal decision by that individual. The ridiculous English preoccupation with classes has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Rich or poor, it should make no difference to the individuals' decision to limit themselves in their education. There is no direct immediate cost to prevent anyone at all regardless of their personal situation from undertaking a course of study. It simply requires a bit of intelligent thought to be put into whether or not a course of study is valuable in the long run. If it is, then the individual may choose to do the study.
If not, they may choose not to.
If the course of study is undertaken and then they earn over the threshold then they pay. That's the decsion to be made. The fact that you might eventually have to pay for the study is part of the decision for anybody when considering to spend money on goods or services.
Regardless of class - anyone can and does have adccess to the same education and can achieve the same outcome as a result of that education. It may be that some people have to pay becase their parents can't but that's a ridiculous reason to assert that "lower-class" (whatever that's supposed to mean) people specifically, will be discouraged from studying.
If you want something (in this case a degree) it has a cost. If being in debt is an issue, then the student should get a job to defer the costs.
Instead of whining about all the reasons this creates a poroblem, expend energy on finding a positive way of avoiding the debt in the first place.
It may result in some people choosing not to go to University. If it does then that is a personal decision by that individual. The ridiculous English preoccupation with classes has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Rich or poor, it should make no difference to the individuals' decision to limit themselves in their education. There is no direct immediate cost to prevent anyone at all regardless of their personal situation from undertaking a course of study. It simply requires a bit of intelligent thought to be put into whether or not a course of study is valuable in the long run. If it is, then the individual may choose to do the study.
If not, they may choose not to.
If the course of study is undertaken and then they earn over the threshold then they pay. That's the decsion to be made. The fact that you might eventually have to pay for the study is part of the decision for anybody when considering to spend money on goods or services.
Regardless of class - anyone can and does have adccess to the same education and can achieve the same outcome as a result of that education. It may be that some people have to pay becase their parents can't but that's a ridiculous reason to assert that "lower-class" (whatever that's supposed to mean) people specifically, will be discouraged from studying.
If you want something (in this case a degree) it has a cost. If being in debt is an issue, then the student should get a job to defer the costs.
Instead of whining about all the reasons this creates a poroblem, expend energy on finding a positive way of avoiding the debt in the first place.
The real issue has been debated at length in the media already. The news today isn't about the rise in fees as we've had that already. The news today is this protest. If the protest went off without a hitch then perhaps the media would be discussing the issue (though I doubt it, I suspect the China thing would just be given more airtime) but it did not. The people who turned it into a riot are the news, they have forced the shift from the debate about fees to the debate about rioting. They only have themselves to blame.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,537
- Location
- London
How does it do this
"Lower class" intelligent individuals can do the same courses and work hard to acheive in the same way anyone else from any background can. It makes no difference at all what "class" people come from.
"Lower class" intelligent individuals can do the same courses and work hard to acheive in the same way anyone else from any background can. It makes no difference at all what "class" people come from.
Indeed. To be frank the policy has very little to do with deficit reduction, it's clear to anyone with a passing understanding of figures that we're talking decades before it'll start paying for itself. And it doesn't strictly prevent anyone from entering Uni of course, just greatly discourage them, giving the politicians of all stripes an easy out when debating the subject with journo's. It's all about reducing the numbers of students, but rather than being on a basis of the 'best and brightest' via selective induction it'll be based upon the groups least scared by the prospect of £21k+ debt at 22 years old. The concept that students from poor and medium-income backgrounds aren't put off by debt is laughable, especially when everyone and their dog has been going on about how personal and government debt are what caused this down-turn in the first place. Then again, perhaps the idea is to reduce student numbers as part of overall spending reductions - after all, it costs less to keep someone on the dole than it does to educate them.
The knock-on effects for graduates with this level of repayment have barely been discussed. Suffice to say that affordable housing better be damn affordable if you want students to be able to migrate to new locations for jobs, and expect to see your educated young couples defer parenthood into even later than they are currently. I wonder how the Daily Mail generation would react if they new the policy is likely to drop house prices significantly as demand dries up?
That all said, whatever the policy we have in 3 years time it'll all be moot if the economy doesn't drastically improve, and it's on that basis we should be judging the current Government. There still aren't nearly enough jobs around, and certainly not enough 'highly skilled' jobs to cater even for graduates in 'good' degrees like Maths and Engineering.
--
With that mini-rant out the way, lets just think about an NUS so naive that the 'violent minority' caught them by surprise. Seriously? These are the guys and gals who often go into politics following their stint in that august institution. Bloody idiots.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
lol, on this forum we have one of every single point of view imaginable. of course we can't just get along 
I said you never typed scottish it was my skim reading mistake.
I was wrong and I am sorry.
I think the problem is that they are such a lame duck one man band and have never really become a show of force for anything - or even widely publicised.
I mean look at the website
http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/
LOL
Why did Labour supporters on masse not go to this new shining beacon of red belief?
The labour movement is really going to have a hard time reinventing itself for a third time.