Tuition fees

[Jon]

Blair won but who can say that was democracy and politics at thier best?

He won by five votes but would have lost if his enemies did not make last minute changes in order to please thier mates and thier party. Many of the MPs voted against thier own belief in order to let Blair win. They were taken to see Blair in the 11th hour and were encouraged to vote in favour of him simply just to deny the Conservatives and Libs a victory. They were also told that if they voted against Blair they would loose out on influential positions in future cabinets. Nick Brown voted in favour simply because he is Gordan Brown's mate. Even one MP said on Radio 4 last night that if he voted against Blair he would have felt like he was cutting his own throat. therefore voted for tuition fees (and encouraged his mates to) for the party. Im not a university student therefore tutition fees wont effect me, but many families will be poorer because Labour took into account its own benefits rather than the benefit to the country.

Parliament is a load of crap. Its arguing just for the sake of arguing and in the end MPs only vote for thier parties sake rather than the sake of the nation.

What about the Scottish MPs? They voted on something which doesnt even effect thier country. Thats like the Welsh voting to raise council tax in London!

[df2inaus]

Jon,

Parliament is a load of crap. Its arguing just for the sake of arguing and in the end MPs only vote for thier parties sake rather than the sake of the nation.

I once said words to that effect during a lecture in first year political science and was dressed down by the prof for saying what everyone was thinking.

We're stuck with partisan politics but its the best we've got. See Churchill quotes.

Years later, when I was at Sandhurst, I withdrew from an argument which caused another cadet to erupt in righteous indignation. She of course supported the war against Saddam, as officer cadets under a microscope tend to do, but hated the Americans (when she wasn't travelling there and craving their lifestyle).

I informed her that there is a better, wait for it, form of democracy in the world than the British/Canadian/Aus/NZ. In theory!

The United States has a bicameral legislature. Elections to fill the House and Senate seats are staggered. Every state has two Senators. Yep, Rhode Island has as much power in the upper house as California.

You often find Democratic presidents with a Democratic Congress but Republican Senate. The failure of the US to pass effective gun-control legislation shows that the Yanks' system of checks and balances of partisan power is imperfect, but better than Parliamentary Democracy.

Why on earth should people be appointed to the upper house who just rubber stamp the bills of the party leader that put them there? In Canada, whenever a significant bill is about to be put to vote, there is a deluge of Senate appointments.

As soon as someone's elected who says they'll reform the Senate, they er, suddenly discover the system works in their favour. Great way to pay off those who did them favours over the years, isn't it?

All the Canadian politicians from 1867 to the present who perpetuate this unjust system are absolute bastards.

[Ploggers]

Ask yourself one simple question;

Should a person go to university and gain a degree (whatever shape or size) who is going to benefit financially. That is the person who should pay for the qualification.

Sorry for being un-PC but a degree usually ensures that the holder earns more that he/she would have done without said beer drinking / spag bol eating qualification.

Why the hell should I pay for their future enhanced earnings.

You want a degree - get one! but dont ask me to buy your beer every night.

[AdamR]

Df2inaus, I think that the American system works well in theory but certainly not in practice. Senators and Congressmen tend to have lots of companies supporting them and their election campaigns, or have interests in certain areas of industry thus when a bill comes along which could benefit the country but not themselves they'll tend to vote against it. Plus I totally disagree with the whole two party system, there are far more than two ways to skin a cat and a bit of diversity in US politics wouldn't go amiss The House of Lords, especially under 'New' Labour has become a shambles, I think that heredritry peers, though pretty much chosen at birth were a much better way forward, they tend to be groomed from an early age for their role, this isn't to say that its unjust, just far better than the party appointed lap dogs we currently see.

Pongo, I do see your point, but if thats the case why should the state have to pay out for A-Levels, GCSE's, basic secondry and primary education? Where do you draw the line? I do think that at the moment there are too many people at University, cutting places would free up a lot of money and make a degree something that has to be really worked for. Technically you could say that as a graduate earns more he pays more tax, putting more back into the pot, paying back the cost of his (or her) education and further funding YOUR healthcare and YOUR children's education etc.

[Wholley]

dfinaus.
The US has over two hundred seperate gun control laws at the Federal level.
All aimed at law abiding citizens,NOT at criminals who can pretty much do as they wish.More gun control laws are not needed.
Whats needed is enforcement of current laws at State and Federal levels.
Gun grab legislation will not work here as Gore found out in 2000.
Same thing in Canada.My cousin is retired RCMP and I'm an ex Deputy Sheriff,we both agree,banning guns is not the answer to violent crime.
In States that allow concealed carry the violent crime rate has dropped,in some States by 20%.DC,NYC,etc who have banned lawful ownership of firearms are watching their crime rates soar.
I'll shut up now.
Wholley.

[df2inaus]

Wholley,

Totally agree with you.

I used gun control as an example of how the system works or doesn't as the case may be. I couldn't think of another example at the time.

My view is that if you're going to control firearms it begins with having tanglible punishments for firearms offences.

People with "nothing to lose" should have to think twice before purchasing and ultimately using firearms.

When was the last time a farmer, antique collector or shooting enthusiast committed an armed robbery or murder?

Yes, farmer Tony Martin was completely justified in topping that traveller.

The much vaunted Gun Registry in Canada has cost billions for what an experienced programmer could have achieved for less than $100,000 and still there are battles fought with guns in our streets. The juvenile offenders who use them have their identity protected and are given sentences that do nothing to deter them in the slightest.

What are the politicians scared of? Why don't they admit that soft punishment or lack thereof is itself a cause of crime? Why won't Tony Blair "get tough" on that "cause of crime".

Oh, what about proposed fines for 10 year-olds' anti-social behaviour? Bet that will be well-enforced. These prepubescent, brick-lobbing, school-burning, vitriol-spitting creatures have no job, no bank account, familiy's on the dole, how stupid does Blair think the electorate is?

[Jon]

I agree, the problem of the government is that it tries to cut crime by intoducing new restrictions and regulations, little realising that criminals dont give a toss about rules. Money is wasted on trying to enforce the law while not enough is done to combat the criminals themselves, or punish them. A bigger dterrent is needed. Im sick of tired of anti-socail gangs of teenagers (im a teenager myself by the way but in no way would I act like some of them) hiding behind laws which prohibit thier victums from taking action. They and thier parents should be prosecuted. Prevention works, but punishment must be tough.

The death penalty needs to be reintroduced, police need to be armed, and more should be done to tackle criminals rather then enforcing thier rights.

[df2inaus]

Back to the original thread,

[Marina]

I voted for 3rd category.

Alot universities are under-funded especially in the Science section. There is not enough money for funding of projects and some of the equipment in the labs are so archiac, they almost about to fall to pieces.
So maybe, fees may help in their annual budget modernise certain disciplines like Science

And as some of you said there are too many irrelevent degree courses around

[Sisyphus]

Apologies but I don't understand the new system. I think I heard someone say that the new fees will help students from poorer backgrounds get into university through subsidies. If, true, then I support the idea. [but not for mickey mouse subjects] And also with the caveat that universities should be barred from accepting students who are academically unsuited to degree level study.

I know some universities are accepting students who have really struggled to get A levels. What chance have they got when they have to study at degree level?

[Kat =^..^=]

I've read through this thread and I keep seeing lots of references to 'Mickey Mouse' degrees and how people should be doing more practical degrees.

Maybe you should tell that to Dr. Hawkins I think he'd be a really good plumber, do you? Or indeed lets make a colour blind person a Sparky, I think that is a good and practical job.

I agree there are some degrees that sound silly however, it isn't what you do your degree in that really matters, the stress and work load are the same. It is very difficult to self motivate and keep on top of your studies, My friend has a PhD in Pure maths but he's a shit carpenter. Horses for courses.

And why should everyone or anyone do a 'practical' degree? maybe we should adopt a swedish way of things and give education to people that want to study geology as well as to those that want to study plumbing, for free.

[Mr Grimsdale]

I don't anyone disagrees with what you're saying Kat =^..^=, but the Mickey Mouse degrees most people talk about are those such as Soap Opera studies or Knitting & Czechoslovakian.

I couldn't believe some of the daft courses on offer when I was applying, and that was 15 years ago!

As for plumbing, carpentry does someone really need a degree in that? A good carpenter is good because they've done the job for years and has the experience.

As for the stress and workload of all degrees being equal I totally disagree. There is no comparison between trying to get your head around quantum physics and discussing the ins and outs of Eastenders.

[Kat =^..^=]

... There is no comparison between trying to get your head around quantum physics and discussing the ins and outs of Eastenders.

As I said horses for courses, not everyone can do maths just like my friend who has a doctorate in pure maths doesn't have a clue or could even get their head round medieval manuscripts.

And it's just the same if you go into a practical job, after 3 or 4 years of on the job training they'll be earning the same as a graduate, all it is, is different types of jobs and training. From the dictatorship government we have in power at the moment, it wouldn't surprise me if they banned all none practical subjects in a bid to make people get jobs in a more hands on environment.

[Mr Grimsdale]

I agree with you, but what is the point of studying a degree in Soap Operas or Knitting?

There's nothing wrong with watching Soap Operas or Knitting if that floats your boat but why on Earth do the rest of us have to pay for the kids that want to do that? It's not as though they're going to get a job with such a qualification and therefore contribute to the economy.

[Kat =^..^=]

And what job do you think someone with a Pure Maths degree is going to get?