Big day for Tone on Tuesday. A vote in the Commons on University Top Up Fees. He's said he will resign if he's defeated. Given his past record in mendacity I don't know why I believe him this time but I do.

How ironic that a man that took his country into war on the basis of a lie/miscaculation/intelligence mistake could be brought down by something as mundane as this.

If he wins the vote then on Wednesday we hear the findings on the Hutton Inquiry into the death of David Kelly. Was it our fearless PM who authorised the leaking of this poor man's name to the press. He was certainly chairing the meeting when the strategy was agreed that led to the naming and death of Dr Kelly. How could he have not known?

When told of the discovery of Dr Kelly's body Bliar was aboard an airplane. The press contingent were told by a clearly shaken Bliar that he was "not involved in the naming of Dr Kelly in any way at all".

Time to go Tone - I'm sure Michael Howard will have a seat open for you.

Of course, like the worms on the end of my fishing line you'll probably wriggle and squirm until you escape.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly...126903,00.html

BTW - I would like to clarify that my expressed disgust at some of the actions and policies of the British Prime Minister and Government should in no way be taken as me being anti-brittish.

Brittish ?

I certttainly am!

Just one small point Donut - this ain't mundane at all. Its a big, big vote and it goes against the exact letter of the New Labour manifesto, so is in itself another example of the fantastic principles our Prime Minister lives by.

I used to have small amounts of sympathy for Blair, but the war and the student fees have finished that off entirely. I saw an interview with him the other day where he was asked if it was going to be a problem putting students in debt. His reply ran along the lines of: "Well, the current system already puts them in a lot of debt really.". And who's fault is that Tony? Who introduced the current shite system after explicitely promising not to?

He's a two-faced, hypocritical, conniving git, and it depresses me that he will almost certainly leave office and go on to much greater things in the world...

Time you got off the fence Bazza!

Got a boy that will be of to Uni in a cvouple of years, so you can probably work out how I feel about all this crap.

I'm not sure what the "government's position" on tuition fees is or what "top-up" means. The article doesn't clarify this. I'll assume the government is wanting to raise tuition.

Which I think it should. Tuition fees in the USA are ridiculously high, but those in the UK are ridiculously low. I think school is very valuable, and that it increases one's wealth dramatically at the end of the day. Accordingly, I am opposed to giving such an obvious benefit to those who are already privileged (by being smart enough for uni) without compensating the underprivileged likewise. If it's social fairness we want, schooling at the uni level should be a bit expensive. (Again, not as stupidly expensive as in the USA).

Moreover, the levels of costs associated with keeping one student at uni are higher than the tuition currently charged in the UK, I believe. So, this means that not only do the privileged people get free schooling, but also that they do it at the expense of all taxpayers -- including the unschooled laborers trying to eek out a living. It's just not right. It's like taxing everyone to buy nice cars for the wealthy.

Just my take on it. And, this take is coming from someone shouldering an expensive house's value in student loans. :( Between me and my wife, we pay out $1600 a month in student loan payments -- and are scheduled to continue doing so for another 25 years. I think my school should have cost LESS, but I still think that even at that level, I have benefitted more than I've lost by selling my soul to the student loan devils.

Yikes Timber thats a bloody lot of money.

So why would you wish it on others? Free education to those who have the ability is a good thing [sup]TM[/sup]. And yes i realise it's not free any more. Those that are of a lesser ability should be able to pay there way along with foriegn students to help fund the schools.

Donut is this not the 3rd time that the Poodle as threatend to resign if a vote does not go his way? One day soon they will call his bluff.

[ 01-24-2004, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: wellard ]

I don't understand your logic. For example, you have a poor person, who is really smart, and then you have a rich person who is less smart. By your logic, if the tuition is higher, the poor person won't be able to go to uni while the rich, but also less smart one, won't have a problem. Okay, the poor one can take a loan, but the rich one doesn't have to. So how does this make it better for the poor person (economically underprivileged)?

Okay, the underprivileged (those not smart enough for uni) will pay less tax, but then why should anyone pay tax at all? Why should anyone pay tax so that people can get health care, if some go to the doctor only once every 2 years, while some people go every week? Why should anyone pay for anything that they don't use? For example, why should I pay so much tax to keep the roads nice if I always take the bus and don't use the roads as much as the people with cars do? But don't get me wrong, I don't mind paying taxes for all those things. [img]smile.gif[/img] I just don't understand your logic, sorry.

Education should be free so that everyone can get a chance to get higher education. And even those with worse grades should have a chance of trying to fix them, or take evening courses to educate themselves further. Here in Sweden everyone has a chance to fix their grades so they get into uni, or at least, if they've finished highschool there are always some higher education schools where they're able to take a course. And those who already work and didn't have good grades in highschool, get extra points added to them so they can go back to school. What's so wrong with that? We all pay tax for schools, and we all get a chance to go to school. :D

Can just anyone attend a university in England? I assume that their are tests and standards you must meet. Primary and secondary education should indeed be free to all since all are allowed, or forced, to attend till a certain age.
This type (ie. basic) education benefits not only the individual but the entire society.

I think it would have to be shown that a university education does benefit society, or at least a large majority, before expecting all of society to pay for it. Is it fair to have the worker class, which historically hasn't utilized university's yet helps pay for them, and which is also the most economically challenged be burdened with their expense. It suggests to me a new class system along Huxuley's Brave new World lines. It's always great when you are an Alpha.

Personally I think society as a whole does benefit from supporting university level education. However I don't believe that it should be free. The cost should also be borne by those who directly benefit.

University educated people on average will pay more tax over their life times than non-university educated people (because they earn more money). So it is not just the 'working class' who are burdened by paying for their education, and by paying more tax they are directly benefiting society. And of course, university educated people are capable of performing essential services (eg medical, legal, financial) that are also a direct benefit to society.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with the notion that less able students who can afford full fees should be able to enter university. Even ignoring the arguments that education should be equal and available to everyone and there not be advantages to having rich parents, such a situation puts pressure on universities to lower expectations and pass students who are paying full fees, and therefore cheapen the value of everyone's education. As if, when you have a student who is paying full fees and did not have to fulfill merit-based criterion for entry, the university would only want to collect their fees for first year and then throw them out because they failed.

I am with everything you say Aelia,but in addition I also support the notion of the current HECS system that places more of the burden on the student that has managed to obtain a higher income by going to Uni. I was in the first intake year that paid full HECS and it seemed darned inequitous to me that people who started 2 years ealrier than me were paying half the debt that I was accruing [img]smile.gif[/img] . While the HECS annoyed me back then, I could still see the sense in it, and felt that in paying it I had put my bit back in for the fine education I received (whoops - had to edit the i before e except after c thing there ;) ).

When I was in Edinburgh in 1999 I got into an argument with one of the locals who wanted me to sign his petition to maintain free education in th UK in protest at a HECS system. He was most upset that I couldn't be convinced to see things from only his point of view. He followed me from the train station into a shoe store on the opposite side of Princess Street complaining all the while that I had the most totally closed mind that he had ever met :D .

I actually agree with what you say Aelia, but how do we fund this? Society isn’t ready for higher levels taxation, or massive cuts to spending, so the evil of compromise may have to be looked at. What I suggest is the lesser of those two evils. It at least allows the talented to have the education they deserve and not be burdened at the start of their lives by the crushing weight of student loans. The burden of these loans must have some overall detrimental effect on the progression of society by forcing the best students into high paying jobs rather the freedom of research and expression.

A limit of 10% of a class opened up to fee paying students would not overtly influence the class dynamics and if they fail the class? tough!
Of course I or anyone in my family have never been to University (you guessed ;) ) but I cannot see how a low level of fee-paying students would affect standards

Yes, but as I said, it would not just be 'tough!' if the universities NEED the money that their full fee paying students generate. Someone who didn't get good enough results to do the course they want and simply isn't capable of doing the work should fail, but if the universities aren't getting the funding they need and rely on full fee paying students it would be silly for them to throw the student out. So they either have to have different standards for full fee paying students, which would rightly not be tolerated by other students (and hopefully society - I don't really want to have my pet operated on by a veterinary graduate who 'passed' because their parents were wealthy, for instance), or relax standards for everyone to accomodate people who are only there because they're rich. If it is not in the university's best interests to fail even one of these students, so they do not, then that will automatically affect standards.

And I do agree, Davros, as we've discussed before, that university shouldn't be free, however it should be subsidised. LOL, as you know, I was equally irritated when they raised HECS again when I entered and I was paying double what my brother paid ;)

I don't see what's so hard to understand about my "grenade" post. Because Uni carries real economic benefit it should not be free. Making it free will further segregate society -- those who are smart enough get an economic benefit borne on the backs of all taxpayers. That's not fair -- rather than split society into "rich/poor" it only serves to segregate into "smart/dumb."

As for allowing smart poor students to attend schools -- that's what the student loans are for. Also, grants, like our Pell grant, can help ease the burden -- while still requiring some payment/indebtedness for gaining the HUGE benefits of education.

Were our tuitions not so high in the US, just like 25-40% lower, I would claim the system is better overall.

There are other issues to consider. No-one from a poor background would choose to study English Literature or Philosophy if they are going to wind up with $40,000 loan to pay off at the end - so you will see a gradual detorioration in collective knowledge as non-money making degrees take second place to law, accountancy etc. etc.

There is no reason why a graduate tax can not be instigated in place of loans. In fact, being a tax, the system would be more flexible and could lead to raising an even greater amount of cash for the education system than the loan based system, especially as this would mean paying taxes over the working life-time of the person involved.

And of course, it solves the issue of those who recieve the beneifts of a degree paying for that degree, while not discouraging those from poorer backgrounds partaking in a system that should be a right, rather than a priviledge.

I am generally against the idea of treating an education like a commodity - it has a lot of side effects aside from the general problem of putting people from poor backgrounds off. If the education is viewed as simply a commodity purchased to ensure higher earnings then who the hell is going to come out of university and work in a low paid job? Not a problem? It will be for the public sector. The civil service of tomorrow is going to be undermanned, underpaid, and most probably underqualified.

Also these plans are going to create sink universities, much like the sink schools we seem to have now. People who can't afford the red bricks will be forced to go for a second class qualification at a university where they can't afford decent resources and good teachers.

Generally this isn't a good idea. IMO anyway.

The big vote is tonight - it's on a knife edge!!

Intresting idea Skunk! It seems to have merit. I'm guessing that it involves adding a couple of percent to their tax bill for a few years, is this right?
If so it certainly seems to be a great idea. Allowing the finest to continue into research and the arts if they wish without the burdens. A win win situation :D

The problem with the Graduate tax is that it either taxes some people who can't pay - e.g. those who have an expensive degree but take on low paid work like public sector work, or the system becomes exactly the same as a normal progressive tax but leaving some people out for some reason. The only difference between the graduate tax and a progressive tax is that of dessert, in other words making the people who used the product pay for the product. But this of course makes no sense when you consider that the people who have degrees who are benefitting the whole of society (like doctors etc) would be harmed much more by this than someone who has taken their degree and used it only for their personal gain (like a company director on a huge salary). So a better system would be to just tax the rich straight out - you get all the people who've actually benefitted from the degree to pay for it and those who've used it to help society as a whole aren't punished for having done so.

Barry, in the U.S. we have loan forgiveness programs for public sector work. A few of the law students I went to school with started a non-profit and receive a huge loan reduction credit for running it. HERE's an example. This was started by a guy one year behind me in law school.

As well, my firm just introduced a public service one-year program. The first person to enter it will be graduating law school this year, and then going to work in legal aid for one year, while retaining her guaranteed place in the firm thereafter.

In other words, there are ways to address your concerns.

I am not trying to "make" it a commodity. School has value and costs money. It should be paid for by those who benefit from it, not society as a whole -- it's that simple.

Now, Skunk or someone mentioned discouraging people from going to graduate school for the arts or some other more low-paying jobs. Well, very true. I chose law school over graduate school in English for one reason -- $$$$$$. However, that was my decision. I could have toughed it out through graduate school and then tried to eek out a living.

Ultimately, though, you've got to recognize there are Many well-paying jobs in the arts -- from being a professor to owning an art gallery to painting to writing for TSR. There are simply FEWER good jobs than people seeking them. That means some markets are Flooded. Accordingly, we should let the natural economic process discourage people from those jobs. If there are just simply too many frikkin writers out there, you've made a bad decision if you enter that field of work, regardless of how your heartstrings may tug at you. ;)

[EDIT] I saw Blair defending this on "Questions" the other night -- and he defended his position quite well. What is it about his plan that bothers you guys? If I understand it correctly, his plan involves no up front money for students.

Now, I realize there was a gentleman's agreement not to even consider the topic, and I understand he broke that (and I'd like to know why if any of you know), but his plan sounds pretty good. He claims that currently up-front costs discourage some poor students, which sounds true.

[ 01-27-2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Well, first off the current up front costs were brought in by Blair a few years ago and we were the ones opposing them then! He's now managed to turn it around so that now suddenly we're in favour of them and he's against them, which is complete nonsense. He was the one who wanted them, so if they're a bad system he should admit he got it wrong and that the left had it right.

Anyway, whilst I don't doubt that students benefit the whole of society does as well, as such education can't be viewed as simply another good that has to be bought and sold. Its much more complicated than that. Also, your point that public sector work can receive loan forgiveness is a bit moot as my point was not specifically about public sector work but just used them as an example. Would everyone who couldn't afford the graduate tax be forced to pay it? If not then why is it different from a tax on the rich?

That would be my point to you - why not just introduce an outright tax rate increase on the highest tax bracket to solve the funding crisis. By all of your own logic its identical to the Graduate tax - the people who benefit from education pay for it. By attacking that notion you are admitting that not everyone benefits from an education financially, which begs the question of why they should be forced to pay as much as someone who has?

I would say, in keeping with my "flooded markets" comment, that if someone takes their education and does not benefit economically from it, they have wasted a precious resource entrusted to them. Besides, even without "economic" benefit, the quality-of-life benefit gained from simply Knowing more is worth value as well, and it too should not be given away for free on the backs of the taxpayers.

I think the public sector is a fine way to address the concerns you mentioned. If you get an education, you should be able to get a good paying job, or be a samaritan and do public sector and/or public interest non-profit type work for the public good. If you can't do either, well, aren't you just dead weight anyway?

I just can't tell you how much the "benefits the whole of society" sounds like Reagan's trickle-down economics. It really does, only his applied to the business owners benefitting all of society (i.e. by letting them keep more of their money, they will invest more and create more jobs) just as learned academes benefit all of society (i.e. let them learn for free and they will think great thoughts, write great works, make great art and benefit us all). It really is the same economic theory. Think about that and how much you liked/like Reagan for that policy.

Thanks for the info about TB instituting the fees to begin with. I'm on the same page with him. First, students should pay. Now that they are paying, one should do the second task: structure their payment so that they can shoulder it better.

But, that's just me. I've made my case as best I can.

<font color="#C4C1CA">
As I said, the beauty of a graduate tax is the flexibility that it implies. There is no reason why it can't be tagged to a specific tax group for example, so that it only kicks in when your income rises above say, 15K per year.

So in this way, if you opt to 'give back to society' by taking a low-paid public sector job, you are automatically free of the graduate tax burden since you are not paid enough to be subject to the tax.

As for the current system, the 'up-front costs' more than discourage poor students - but Blair's alternative would only make matters worse. You see, in the UK, the basic student loan + allowance is NOT enough to pay for your living costs anyway.

Now traditionally, banks used to pick up the slack, loaning students the money to tide them over - but with loans in the background, the banks feel (rightly) that the student is already too indebted and therefore a high risk. The result is that the banks simply refuse to help these days - so poor students (who are unable to lean on their parents) are even less likely to be able to finish their studies.
</font>

It's more than a gentleman's agreement. Before each election each political party produces their manifesto, a list of things they will do if they gain power. Labour's 2001 manifesto categorically ruled out the introduction of top up fees, now we all know that politicians aren't always honest, but this issue flies in the face of Labour party values.

"We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated against them"

Blair has a majority of 160 votes in the House of Commons - how on earth has he alienated so many of his MP's? Win or lose he's going to be deeply wounded by this vote.

BTW - the day I hear Blair actually answer a question in Questions to the PM I'll vote Tory!

[ 01-27-2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

<font color=deepskyblue> I just heard on the radio that Blair "won" by just 3 votes. From an on paper majority of 160.

Donut, please don't even joke about voting Tory. Some jokes are just not funny :D I thought you were Liberal?

Timber, just for info, The British and Australians have always been brought up with the notion that Education like Health should be free and fair to everyone. (A very good ideal, worth preserving) The very fact that the so called socialist party is the bringer of this sort of change is so frustrating (bloody criminal actually) The very fact that we have to even talk about what level of the cost should be born by the student is a step backward IMO
</font>

I simply disagree, Wellard. While I think health care is more appropriately nationalized, I do not feel the same vis-a-vis education. And, as I've said before, I'm only trying to be fair.

He won by five votes, not three. I'd like to claim that its a moral victory, but its not. Its a defeat which ever way you look at it.

Shit.

You probably heard that if three Labour MP's had voted against the Government they would have lost. Interesting that one of the leading "rebels" nick Brown, should switch his vote on the last day. He and a number of others are thought to have been "asked" to change sides by the Chancellor, Gordon Brown. It was Gordon Brown that was shafted by Teflon Tony over the leadership of the Labour party proving that a "gentleman's agreement" is worthless unless it's made by a gentleman.

You're right about the voting Tory bluff wellard! :D In 1974, for the "who rules Britain" I did enter the voting booth intending to vote Tory but I couldn't do it. i remember standing in the booth with my pencil hovering over the Tory box but when it came down the cross was next to the Labour candidate.

Yes, I consider myself to be a Liberal Democrat (please note the capitalisation, there is a great deal of difference between a liberal and a Liberal)

Barry - take heart, Teflon Tony continues to take hits, it's only a matter of time now. I note that his team have now leaked details of the Hutton Inquiry to the Sun Newspaper. Ironic - they have leaked details of an Iinquiry into a leak! What will these scummy toerags do next!

"Sir Humphrey - please set up a LEAK ENQUIRY".
.
"Yes Prime Minister" :D

He's taking hits but he's done that before and survived intact. he's not an AD&D character - its not like he has number of political hitpoints taken off for each scandal. Given time each scandal just sinks beneath the waves of spin and counter-spin. Its all very demoralising.

I disagree - it's taking it's toll. I don't believe he will lead the Labour Party into the next election.

That may be the case but I don't think it will be because of the public opinion of him that he'll go - he'll go because Brown will force him out. And even then, I strongly doubt good old Gordon would have behaved any differently in any of the situations Blair has faced. He's implicated just as much in most of them anyway.