Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th

[Things change I've changed]

I would quite happily scrap university fees if uni went back to being for the elite and not anyone who wants to go...

However regarding 'debt'. Anyone with half a brain would realise that going to a half decent university to study a decent subject meant the debt is not really an issue... I know people who are on £40k plus and pay just over £200 a month servicing it. Granted you would rather keep that money but it's not making you destitute. Don't earn over ~20k then you don't pay anything.

The whole 'scared of debt' argument is a bit weak imo.

I actually have half a brain believe it or not, only half mind , I understand how the loans work, which is why I still pushed my brother and a number of friends to go to university, but I still beleive in general many people are put off by the fee's, it was the main reason why my brother didn't want to go even though he is quite gifted.

End of the day I just believe that people should have easy access to higher education, with no fee's, and I don't believe uni should just be reserved for "the elite", hate this mentality, we obviously have completely different views on this which is fine, I respect your opinion/veiw.

 

[CorrectHorseBattery]

The difference between our railways and those in other countries is that the people who use them pay for them, which I personally think is fairer than making everyone pay for them even if they don't use them!

 

[Tunney]

Nationalisation of rails is hilarious. At a starting point it will probably cost billions to buy companies out of their franchises... So your already billions down...

Or they could slowly nationalise the franchises as they expire. Who knows what the plan is though.

Now your asking the whole of the country to subsidise a system (more so than present) that is used mainly by Londoners and the South East...

And as others have said... Services are vastly better now than what they were when nationalised.

We already do subsidise the railways. In fact, we subsidise our railways more now than we did before Thatcher privatised them.

Thatcher privatised the railways at a time when passenger numbers and investment was in terminal decline. The railways were chronically underfunded for decades and we're now having to play catch-up.

It's that extra investment, not privatisation, that's led to improvements.

 

[drs101]

Time and time again its become obvious that public run companies are black holes for money because they don't employ the best people, don't pay competitive salaries for the expertise they need and as a result they are really poorly run. You want to have a nationalised rail and power system that becomes a bloated mess that you will ultimately pay for through your taxes? Thats fine.

When there is no drive to prioritise profit and efficiency bad things happen. There is a good reason capitalist countries economies far outstrip those that are far more state run.

I was around in the 70's so I remember how things where and don't think its a perfect solution but do think we need to try something a little different as things are not working for normal people anymore, the housing market and social housing are also prime examples how the private market and quest for profit has shafted many normal people.

 

[balky12]

I actually have half a brain believe it or not, only half mind , I understand how the loans work, which is why I still pushed my brother and a number of friends to go to university, but I still beleive in general many people are put off by the fee's, it was the main reason why my brother didn't want to go even though he is quite gifted.

End of the day I just believe that people should have easy access to higher education, with no fee's, and I don't believe uni should just be reserved for "the elite", hate this mentality.

It wasn't an attack at you. University is easily accessable. The easiest it has ever been. I was just saying if the 'debt' puts someone off then it probably isn't for them...

End of the day if people want anyone and everyone to go university then they have to accept it will have to be paid for by individuals.

I would prefer a system where the brightest 10/20% of the country go to university for free. I would happily pay towards that throug my tax.

Would eliminate this bloat of graduates who can't get jobs, or jobs that they could have had as a school/ college leaver.

 

[fez]

End of the day I just believe that people should have easy access to higher education, with no fee's, and I don't believe uni should just be reserved for "the elite", hate this mentality.

Thats how life works though. Life isn't fair. People are not all equal. Some people are smarter than others. Some are better and sports, arts etc.

We should support peoples desire to get an education but the university system is stuck between a rock and a hard place. You have 2 viable options and only one of them is actionable without people throwing their toys out of the pram.

You can allow anyone to go to university and study whatever crappy subject they want that will never lead to a career and you make them pay for that.

The other viable option is to pay for people to go to university but limit it to subjects that actually benefit or require a higher education.

We simply cannot afford to send everyone to uni and pay for it when the vast majority of them won't pay it back in higher earnings and don't need it.

 

[fez]

I was around in the 70's so I remember how things where and don't think its a perfect solution but do think we need to try something a little different as things are not working for normal people anymore, the housing market and social housing are also prime examples how the private market and quest for profit has shafted many normal people.

Industries are getting more complex and competitive all the time so the last thing we want is vital services run badly by the government.

 

[balky12]

Or they could slowly nationalise the franchises as they expire. Who knows what the plan is though.



We already do subsidise the railways. In fact, we subsidise our railways more now than we did before Thatcher privatised them.

Thatcher privatised the railways at a time when passenger numbers and investment was in terminal decline. The railways were chronically underfunded for decades and we're now having to play catch-up.

It's that extra investment, not privatisation, that's led to improvements.

Oh it's not an easily solution. You can't deny that services are much better now than they have ever been however. Stations that were closed during nationalisation have re-opened. Passengers numbers are well up on nationalisation figures. Quality of services improved.

I did say we already subsidise them and yes it is more so than at the beginning. However it's a lot less than if we were to nationalise them completely.

Ultimately the question is do you think the whole system would run better if it was nationalised? I just can't see how that answer would be yea.

 

[The_Abyss]

Its not finallised, its draft. Today is the day they are all meeting to decide what goes into the final manifesto. I wouldnt want to talk about something which might not make the final draft.

Then he should quite simply say that the manifesto is still being finalised and he's not going to discuss the draft as it may have content that's not yet agreed. And then talk about something tangible.

Just the same as May should have done with the fox hunting question. For once, an evasive response probably would have been perfect, as in 'there are far more pressing things my government needs to deal with first'.

Whatever colour or personality you (anyone, not quoted poster) prefer, there's no denying we just have utterly crap politicians.

 

[Gabbatek]

The labour manifesto is really good

 

[drs101]

Industries are getting more complex and competitive all the time so the last thing we want is vital services run badly by the government.

so how is it ok for foreign state owned companies to do this here in the uk as a means to subsides services in their own counties?

 

[Steedie]

LOL The labour manifesto is hilarious, did Diane Abbot do the maths on how we pay for all that before hand?

 

[xyphic]

You can't deny that services are much better now than they have ever been however. Stations that were closed during nationalisation have re-opened. Passengers numbers are well up on nationalisation figures. Quality of services improved.

If you happen to live in the south east, this is true. Everywhere else, it's debatable. Where I live there have been no noticeable improvements to services, but ticket prices continually increase. We're still using the same refurbished Pacer trains from the 80s. Plans to improve links with the south via high-speed services are continually delayed or rejected as the various franchise holders bicker about potential losses in passenger numbers. There are definitely areas that will benefit from renationalisation of the railways, as there are areas that will suffer.

 

[Uther]

The Cons have played a blinder convincing everyone that cuts and austerity is good for us.

 

[Tunney]

Oh it's not an easily solution. You can't deny that services are much better now than they have ever been however. Stations that were closed during nationalisation have re-opened. Passengers numbers are well up on nationalisation figures. Quality of services improved.

Passenger numbers are up due to a shift in government policy. Environmentalism has led to a shift from roads to rail.

Ultimately the question is do you think the whole system would run better if it was nationalised? I just can't see how that answer would be yea.

I don't that's a fair question because we can't compare like-for-like. The railway system was chronically underfunded under Thatcher.

If we look at the parts of our rail network that are publicly-owned (TfL, Eurostar until recently) or have fallen back under public control (East Coast Mainline), they've been incredibly successful.

I'm sure those suffering from Southern Rail's mismanagement would love to see their line re-nationalised. When there's no practical way for railway lines to compete against each other, what benefit does privatisation bring?

 

[Things change I've changed]

The Cons have played a blinder convincing everyone that cuts and austerity is good for us.

Cuts and austerity? Haven't they borrowed more than any other government in the last 70 year's?

 

[Nasher]

so how is it ok for foreign state owned companies to do this here in the uk as a means to subsides services in their own counties?

This is part of the problem. Services in the UK are expensive because they are owned by foreign governments and being used to fund state owned services in their own countries, which are much cheaper. We are mugs for going along with it.

 

[TJM]

It's that extra investment, not privatisation, that's led to improvements.

Yarp.

The franchising system is not markedly more efficient than British Rail. When the first franchises started, the operators found that BR had already made the improvements that could be made.

The current system is not necessarily worse for passengers than BR (fares raised substantially in the old days too) but there are enormous costs involved that aren't obvious to the public, namely the subsidy and the absurd franchising process that is a dream for consultants and lawyers.

TfL has a much leaner and effective system for the DLR and Overground - TfL owns the stations, track and trains, so there is no messing about with investment, but private companies must put in a competitive bid to staff and run the trains on TfL's timetable. The private companies receive a fixed fee for their services, don't see any revenue share and are heavily fined for delays, so there is a strong incentive to run a quality service across all routes and at all times. It works well because the companies are kept on a short leash.

 

[ubersonic]

Haven't they borrowed more than any other government in the last 70 year's?

/facepalm

 

[Schlong&Stable]

They are not toddlers in a sweetshop, they are banks, they misspent the money, we made the mistake of trusting them.

The governments job first and foremost is to provide security for both citizens and the economy. If they change laws and jeopardise the security of the economy, then they are culpable.