Bliar, Bliar your pants are on fire!

[Donut]

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.

[johnny]

Brittish ?

[Donut]

Originally posted by johnny: Brittish ?

I certttainly am!

[Barry the Sprout]

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...

[Donut]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: 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!

[Skippy1]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[wellard]

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 ]

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I'm not sure what the "government's position" on tuition fees is or what. 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.

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.

[antryg]

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.