Abolish Tuition Fees, Vote Conservative!

[CerberusIV]

The problem with the Tory idea that they can be more efficient is that no government in the last 50 years, of either party, has really managed to reduce costs. Reducing costs involves massive reform and job losses and no elected politician is really prepared to piss off that many people because they won't then be re-elected - so the money isn't going to be saved, they will just hope we forget what they promised to do by the time they want our votes again.

I don't have a problem with producing some graduates in most of the subjects that are available. My real objection is that supply outstrips demand. We have taken the idea of equality of opportunity too far.

On a simple level if everyone has the opportunity to be a graduate who is going to do plumbing and build houses, let alone drive dustcarts (yes, I know many of the people who do those things have degrees - but do they need three years of expensive education to do those jobs?).

Or look at it if there were 100,000 university places and 10 people wanted to be doctors and 99,990 wanted to study 14th century Florentine chamber music. We aren't going to have much of a health service that way.

The usual way of controlling demand in western countries is to control price. Education is no different but there is a big difference between managing an education system and making throwaway political promises.

Oh, don't forget that all the students interviewed on the TV saying this is great will be out of university and trying to pay off their debts long before it can actually happen. They won't get their debts reduced and many will feel "I paid for my degree and so should those studying now".

[Drogue]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
The problem with the Tory idea that they can be more efficient is that no government in the last 50 years, of either party, has really managed to reduce costs. Reducing costs involves massive reform and job losses and no elected politician is really prepared to piss off that many people because they won't then be re-elected - so the money isn't going to be saved, they will just hope we forget what they promised to do by the time they want our votes again.

However, with the amount of Labour regulations, targets and centralised interference, with some decentralisation, it could cut costs drastically. However, a few things, like foundation hospitals, are going that way already. But I think boht the Lib Dems and the Tories would do more dectralisation. I used to be a Lib Dem supporter who would vote Labour just to keep out the Tories. I'm turning into a Lib Dem supporter who would vote Tory just to keep out Labour

On the other hand, I'll probably just go with it and vote Lib Dem.

[*End Is Forever*]

Drogue,

Wow Someone mentions my home town. Actually, there *used* to be a demand for the leather industry, with it being a major boot and shoe producing area, but that has died off much with the bust in manufacturing over the country. When Churches was sold to Prada, that was the nail in the coffin

We had Tim Boswell MP (one of the Tory shadow education team, and MP for Daventry which I believe is just down the road from Northampton) speak to us on Tuesday (the day of the announcement), and he used to the School of Leather Technology at University College Northampton to make two points; firstly, that it was an example of the Higher Education sector responding to employers and local business, and secondly that you can't identify a less-useful course simply by the name alone.

some unis maybe shouldn't be teaching social sciences, at some universities they are decent degrees IMHO.

Hear, hear. There's a rather big difference between, say, a Politics degree at the University of York ( ), and a Politics degree at the University of East London.

Really? I thought Scotland was the only place where you didn't pay fees? Am I mistaken?

Now this is where the Liberal Democrats have (very much) muddied the waters. In Scotland, as part of the deal agreed during the first red/yellow coalition talks, up-front tuition fees were "abolished" and replaced with a graduate endowment scheme. It was a step forward, but not by much! The Liberal Democrats insist that these are not tuition fees, and instead go into a "living cost" fund. Personally, if you're making people pay to go to University, I don't think it really matters what you call it.

CerberusIV,

On a simple level if everyone has the opportunity to be a graduate who is going to do plumbing and build houses, let alone drive dustcarts (yes, I know many of the people who do those things have degrees - but do they need three years of expensive education to do those jobs?).

This is exactly the point the Conservative Party is trying to make. What is the point in putting someone through three years of a social policy degree at the University of East London only to emerge as a burger-flipper, when in those three years they could have trained in a vocation such as plumbing (and god knows what plumbers earn these days, particularly in the south!) and be doing exceptionally well.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Ive been voting for 20 years now and up to 97 I always voted tory, mainly because Im self employed and come from a long line of self employed builders. My late Father always voted tory, even though he was very much working class, and I followed in his footsteps.

I would challenge the idea that the tory party is just for the rich and upper classes, I know many hard working decent people who are staunch supporters of the conservative party.

IMHO the tories went way off the path in the late eighties when greed seemed to completely take over the British public. The corruption and deception that was eating away at the tory party and society as a whole during this period was devastating to social justice in this country and I felt I had no alternative to vote Labour in 97 and kick out the festering remnants of a once great political party.

I voted Labour again last time convinced that given enough time they could improve things and they could still, but I see little evidence of real improvements in services being delivered at the moment.

Anyhow to the thread topic, you chaps that have been debating this subject thus far, would you consider my perception of the issue. I have 4 children ages 13,11,9 and 5 and though I say so myself all are very bright kids.

I am self employed Builder and doing okay, my wife is a Nurse and we both work full time. Now we are not poor but neither are stinking rich, and as I see it we are looking at a possible cost of 36K just for tuition fees alone if all 4 of our kids should choose to attend a university. Of course this based on todays figures so God only knows what the costs will be as my kids grow up.

I am really concerned about whether I will be able to support my children in the future and whatever the arguments of whos right or wrong in politics I can assure the prospect of not having to pay those fees has made my ears ***** up, and for the first time since 97 I am starting to consider the tory parties worth as a future goverenment.

Of course there needs to be far more explanation as to how this will be paid for and implemented but its got my attention.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Sorry DF, I've been gone for a while.

Actually, the answer is that those things are natural. Taxes, though, cannot be considered natural, and thus are totally different.

And if you get hit by a car driven by a drunk and are crippled for life, I dont think that can be considered as natural.

1)A restaurant is a place you voluntarily enter and exit at will. While at the restaurant, you can order as much or as little as you would like - you only pay for what you consume/use. If the food isn't good, you can send it back and get more, and if the employees are *******s to you then you speak with the manager and get your meal comped.

A government is a structure under which one is born, with no say in the matter. One may NOT enter or exit at will, at least not all that easily. In terms of social services, one does not get to pick how much or how little, if any, they want, and as such one does not get to decide how much to pay. If the services you DO receive aren't up to your satisfaction, you're pretty much out of luck, and if the IRS act like a bunch of dicks, then they get judicial protection without a lot you can do about it.

2)The purpose of a restaurant is to provide a good and service - that is, food, drinks, and someone to prepare and bring these things to you. This is the sole purpose of a restaurant. The restaurant doesn't ask you how much money you make, it doesn't tell you what pictures you can and can't look at, what you can and can't drink/eat/consume . . .

OK, I see how my analogy didnt work. I take it back.

Your vision of a proper government is one of a government with many functions, most of them intrusive into your private life. The government, you say, has a right to know who lives in your house, how much money you make, what hole you stick it in, what you put into your own body, what political views you hold, and a plethora of other things. Not only this, but the government is supposed to provide all kinds of services to everyone, and demand payment for these services, whether they are or are not wanted or used.

My government doesnt have the right to know which hole you screw, what you put into your own body, or what political views you hold. I dont know where I said anything of that sort.

Also, if you feel that taxes are not a good way of funding the government, how do you expect the state to pay for police, for road maintanence, for government workers salaries, the army, etc. And remeber what happened when the Articles of Confederation were ratified.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
Ive been voting for 20 years now and up to 97 I always voted tory, mainly because Im self employed and come from a long line of self employed builders. My late Father always voted tory, even though he was very much working class, and I followed in his footsteps.

I would challenge the idea that the tory party is just for the rich and upper classes, I know many hard working decent people who are staunch supporters of the conservative party.

IMHO the tories went way off the path in the late eighties when greed seemed to completely take over the British public. The corruption and deception that was eating away at the tory party and society as a whole during this period was devastating to social justice in this country and I felt I had no alternative to vote Labour in 97 and kick out the festering remnants of a once great political party.

I voted Labour again last time convinced that given enough time they could improve things and they could still, but I see little evidence of real improvements in services being delivered at the moment.

Anyhow to the thread topic, you chaps that have been debating this subject thus far, would you consider my perception of the issue. I have 4 children ages 13,11,9 and 5 and though I say so myself all are very bright kids.

I am self employed Builder and doing okay, my wife is a Nurse and we both work full time. Now we are not poor but neither are stinking rich, and as I see it we are looking at a possible cost of 36K just for tuition fees alone if all 4 of our kids should choose to attend a university. Of course this based on todays figures so God only knows what the costs will be as my kids grow up.

I am really concerned about whether I will be able to support my children in the future and whatever the arguments of whos right or wrong in politics I can assure the prospect of not having to pay those fees has made my ears ***** up, and for the first time since 97 I am starting to consider the tory parties worth as a future goverenment.

Of course there needs to be far more explanation as to how this will be paid for and implemented but its got my attention.

What is the problem with students working their way through university? I'm not suggesting 60 hours a week down a coal mine, but 20 odd in a shop or pub wouldn't kill them.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Personally, if you're making people pay to go to University, I don't think it really matters what you call it.

That links nicely back to my point- the one you're not touching with a 10-foot pole. Could you remind me which party it was that abolished grants, income support and housing benefit for students? Kicking off this whole sorry progression? And made them pay poll tax as well?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oh yes, and the other one. What services will be cut to fund it?

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Reds4ever Ive no problem with what you suggest, in fact Ive moaned about bone idle students myself many times, and I think they should work and pay their way, but it has definitely got harder for the less well off to afford a university education. Now as a parent Im interested in seeing the back of tuition fees obviously because it will make it easier for me to support my kids.

You ask whats wrong with students working, nothing! but whats wrong with supporting your kids as much as possible too.

And Laz yes that poll tax was the best form of political suicide I think my or any future generation will ever witness.

There is probably no way to actually fund removing tuition fees altogether but there definitely needs to be some consideration to helping poorer families, however saying that unless the secondary schools start educating the poorer kids better than they do at present then there wont be a demand for university places from poorer families

[DanS]

Income support? Housing benefit?



It's a f'ing different world, I tell ya.

[*End Is Forever*]

I don't get it Alex. On one hand, you're saying "who took away the grant?" and on the other "how can you afford to abolish fees?". I know you've got a natural aversion to Conservative governments, but really...

I could ask "which party presided over massive expansion of the higher education sector to the point where it was no longer simply the sole preserve of the upper classes?" but I don't think you'd like the answer much.

As for the poll tax, that has about as much relevence to today's Conservative Party as the three-day week does, and as much as unilateral disarmament has to the present Labour Party.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by ChrisiusMaximus
Reds4ever Ive no problem with what you suggest, in fact Ive moaned about bone idle students myself many times, and I think they should work and pay their way, but it has definitely got harder for the less well off to afford a university education. Now as a parent Im interested in seeing the back of tuition fees obviously because it will make it easier for me to support my kids.

You ask whats wrong with students working, nothing! but whats wrong with supporting your kids as much as possible too.

It seems to be a 'given' that it's bad for students to work, IMHO studying is not a full time occupation (although I'm sure Mr Forever will claim he consistantly puts in a 40 hour week at the books)

[TheStinger]

I went to uni in the days of grants I got £45 a term, that was 2 nights drinking money.

I have yet to meet anyone who says they will not go to uni because they are woried about debt, however I have mwt parents who have said they will not be able to affor dto send their kids if they have to pay tuition fees. Abolish tuition fees, bring back Polys and raise the status of non graduate employment.

[MikeH]

Not under the current system, which requires students to pay up-front. However, it is true that the proposal to abolish tuition fees will, in comparison to the Labour proposals, largely be about reducing graduate debt.

And don't they get loans to pay the fees? So the actual up front cost to the student is still nothing (unless I've totally missed something). So it still has no effect on student wealth.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by St Leo
The government is also a monopoly. Its got a monopoly on the law, and on power. Image if corporations were allowed to become monopolies

The government is elected. Whatever some may say about voting with one's wallet, corporations are not.

Corporations are at least as likely to have an elected leadership as states are.