Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not!
Discussion
ikarl said:
All the fantastic things labour done....
Well they did to be fair, lots of things improved. But now we are having to pay for those improvements and we will for years to come!Chukka typifies the mess labour are in. The acknowledge the debt problem, won't say where they will make cuts but are happy to tell people how they would spend more money compared to the nasty torys who make cuts.
Edited by covmutley on Thursday 9th July 23:44
Ayahuasca said:
Students - why the f
k do you think you have a right to 'better yourself' at someone else's expense?
You want to 'better yourself', you pay for it, sunshine.
Three reasons immediately spring to mind:k do you think you have a right to 'better yourself' at someone else's expense?You want to 'better yourself', you pay for it, sunshine.
1 - smarter working population benefits the whole economy
2 - their parents got it for free and never paid it back, now the new generation of students are paying for their parent's greed
3 - the Scots get it for free
I believe everyone should pay for their university tuition, not just the current crop. I'd like to see the "123 system" introduced, you pay 1% of your salary for each year of study you conduct/conducted (backdated to include everyone) upto a maximum of 3%, therefore the highest levels of attainment are subsidised, increasing the number of PHDs, doctors and masters level students further benefiting us all and those who got free education historically now pay their share.
John145 said:
Three reasons immediately spring to mind:
1 - smarter working population benefits the whole economy
2 - their parents got it for free and never paid it back, now the new generation of students are paying for their parent's greed
3 - the Scots get it for free
I believe everyone should pay for their university tuition, not just the current crop. I'd like to see the "123 system" introduced, you pay 1% of your salary for each year of study you conduct/conducted (backdated to include everyone) upto a maximum of 3%, therefore the highest levels of attainment are subsidised, increasing the number of PHDs, doctors and masters level students further benefiting us all and those who got free education historically now pay their share.
It got quite uncomfortable for the Scot when it was pointed out to him who got free education in Scotland and who didn't, had to flail for the 'they're ganging up on me line.'1 - smarter working population benefits the whole economy
2 - their parents got it for free and never paid it back, now the new generation of students are paying for their parent's greed
3 - the Scots get it for free
I believe everyone should pay for their university tuition, not just the current crop. I'd like to see the "123 system" introduced, you pay 1% of your salary for each year of study you conduct/conducted (backdated to include everyone) upto a maximum of 3%, therefore the highest levels of attainment are subsidised, increasing the number of PHDs, doctors and masters level students further benefiting us all and those who got free education historically now pay their share.
THe UKiPs woman said some good stuff, but that sour-faced
Sourby just shouted over and interrupted all the time...after complaining to Chukka not to interrupt....fking stupid .Halb said:
It got quite uncomfortable for the Scot when it was pointed out to him who got free education in Scotland and who didn't, had to flail for the 'they're ganging up on me line.'
I think he was more annoyed at trying to answer the question and ALL 5 of them (incl. Dimble) wouldn't let him answer without raising their voices to express their opinion. They will never get an answer out of someone if you don't let them answer!The correct response should have been, if we can do it, why can't you? The Scots people wanted it, we said we would do it, we done it. If you want education the same way, say in one voice that it is important to you, then vote in the party that promises to do it and make sure they deliver it.
As a NATION we tend to challenge why someone has something rather than say "what do we need to do to have that too?"
Halb said:
It got quite uncomfortable for the Scot when it was pointed out to him who got free education in Scotland and who didn't, had to flail for the 'they're ganging up on me line.'
THe UKiPs woman said some good stuff, but that sour-faced Sourby just shouted over and interrupted all the time...after complaining to Chukka not to interrupt....fking stupid .
The Scot really messed up that question. There's a perfectly fair response available to him of "well when England lets our students into its universities for free, we'll let English students into ours for free"THe UKiPs woman said some good stuff, but that sour-faced
Sourby just shouted over and interrupted all the time...after complaining to Chukka not to interrupt....fking stupid .John145 said:
Three reasons immediately spring to mind:
1 - smarter working population benefits the whole economy
2 - their parents got it for free and never paid it back, now the new generation of students are paying for their parent's greed
3 - the Scots get it for free
I believe everyone should pay for their university tuition, not just the current crop. I'd like to see the "123 system" introduced, you pay 1% of your salary for each year of study you conduct/conducted (backdated to include everyone) upto a maximum of 3%, therefore the highest levels of attainment are subsidised, increasing the number of PHDs, doctors and masters level students further benefiting us all and those who got free education historically now pay their share.
I don't think 50% of people having a degree helps the economy that much. 1 - smarter working population benefits the whole economy
2 - their parents got it for free and never paid it back, now the new generation of students are paying for their parent's greed
3 - the Scots get it for free
I believe everyone should pay for their university tuition, not just the current crop. I'd like to see the "123 system" introduced, you pay 1% of your salary for each year of study you conduct/conducted (backdated to include everyone) upto a maximum of 3%, therefore the highest levels of attainment are subsidised, increasing the number of PHDs, doctors and masters level students further benefiting us all and those who got free education historically now pay their share.
When I left school I started work at 16, and by my early 21 had been paying tax for half a decade, and had saved the deposit for a house. These days 50% of early 20 years olds are just leaving school, and have tens of thousands of debt. That can't be good for the economy.
Also in my day about 10% of people went to uni. It was affordable then, and you generally did a degree because you needed it for a particular job.
For it to be free these days the 50% that don't go would have to pay half towards a person that did go. That person then gets paid more than you.
98elise said:
I don't think 50% of people having a degree helps the economy that much.
When I left school I started work at 16, and by my early 21 had been paying tax for half a decade, and had saved the deposit for a house. These days 50% of early 20 years olds are just leaving school, and have tens of thousands of debt. That can't be good for the economy.
Also in my day about 10% of people went to uni. It was affordable then, and you generally did a degree because you needed it for a particular job.
For it to be free these days the 50% that don't go would have to pay half towards a person that did go. That person then gets paid more than you.
That's my recollection too. In those days universities were very different to what they are now and were held in much higher esteem - as were the degrees they offered (changing 'poly' into 'uni' just doesn't do it). Some of the degrees on offer now, mostly because of a need to compete in the 'market' that is further education, are useless in a commercial sense and do nothing to improve the economy in general. When I left school I started work at 16, and by my early 21 had been paying tax for half a decade, and had saved the deposit for a house. These days 50% of early 20 years olds are just leaving school, and have tens of thousands of debt. That can't be good for the economy.
Also in my day about 10% of people went to uni. It was affordable then, and you generally did a degree because you needed it for a particular job.
For it to be free these days the 50% that don't go would have to pay half towards a person that did go. That person then gets paid more than you.
John145 said:
Ayahuasca said:
Students - why the fk do you think you have a right to 'better yourself' at someone else's expense?
You want to 'better yourself', you pay for it, sunshine.
Three reasons immediately spring to mind:k do you think you have a right to 'better yourself' at someone else's expense?You want to 'better yourself', you pay for it, sunshine.
1 - smarter working population benefits the whole economy
2 - their parents got it for free and never paid it back, now the new generation of students are paying for their parent's greed
3 - the Scots get it for free
1. It benefits the student disproportionatly and many courses - David Beckham studies being an extreme example - have neglible exonomic beneifits to society.
2. Yes, but so what?
3. It is not 'free' it is paid for by the taxpayer.
In the USA college education is more expensive than in the UK, if you or your parents cannot pay for it, you don't get it.
The average US worker is 30% more productive than the average UK worker.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff