Election period

[Beef Oven!]

Times up kids
All we have to do is wait and see if we have an act of mass delusion in the style of Jim Jones as is predicted
OR will people do something else ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXtRSzUcZQk

[french frank]

People don't know whether to cheer at the wipe-out of the Lib Dems or weep at the success of UKIP, Beefy - please don't keep deleting and posting the same thing just to get your post at the top of the list.

Meanwhile, since no one responded to the financial (not political) opinion that the new tuition fee system is not as it has been generally perceived, I'll start a thread on that. I can't see the flaw in the argument, but I'm sure people here will be able to shed light on it :-)

[MrGongGong]

People don't know whether to cheer at the wipe-out of the Lib Dems or weep at the success of UKIP, Beefy - please don't keep deleting and posting the same thing just to get your post at the top of the list.

Meanwhile, since no one responded to the financial (not political) opinion that the new tuition fee system is not as it has been generally perceived, I'll start a thread on that. I can't see the flaw in the argument, but I'm sure people here will be able to shed light on it :-)

It's a whole heap of muck innit !

And the LibDems STILL miss the point about Tuition Fees ..... HONESTY MATTERS grrrrrrrrr

According to the BBC the Kippers control NO councils
if the turnout is about 36% (BBC) then NO ONE "won"

Most people wanted something else !! (which could be that they didn't want to go out in a thunderstorm OR they wanted absolute rule by the monarch or the illuminati or who knows ?)

I would have liked to be able to choose to vote for someone who wasn't suggesting that self interest was all that matters :-(

[Beef Oven!]

Beefy - please don't keep deleting and posting the same thing just to get your post at the top of the list.

I deleted it and re-posted it in an attempt to get rid of the youtube advertisement at the beginning of the music clip. I tried editing it, but that didn't work, so I re-loaded it. But hey, keep showing your prejudices.

And in any case it was always at the top, until your post came along, so your accusation is flawed.

Btw, I often edit and re-post, because I sometimes find posting quite messy and confusing, being dyslexic. So you can always ask in the future if you see me editing or re-posting.

[Beef Oven!]

It's a whole heap of muck innit !

You've shat in yer hotel bed again?

Don't learn, do ya!

[french frank]

But hey, keep showing your prejudices.

I can see exactly how many posts you deleted (three) and exactly what they contained.

[french frank]

And the LibDems STILL miss the point about Tuition Fees ..... HONESTY MATTERS grrrrrrrrr

The point, on the other hand that you miss - probably out of an ignorance of the facts - is that the 'pledge' had two parts which - and this was not based on a politician's evidence, but an academic's, writing in The Observer: the two 'pledges' were in fact contradictory, so it had to be one or the other: keeping fees down (which neither Labour nor Conservative were going to do) or making the whole system more 'fair'.

The system was basically 'unfair' previously because it provided subsidised higher education for the minority of better off who, culturally, were far more likely to send their offspring to university, the subsidy being paid for by the far larger lower income taxpayers who didn't send their children to university. What was needed was a system which would encourage applications from far more disadvantaged students, and for those who benefited financially from a university education to pay towards it. As the financial adviser pointed out, it was closer to a 'graduate tax' with the 'debts' being paper debts*, like paper profits. And the fees themselves were, in many cases, notional fees because on the one hand no fees were payable in advance and only those who earned above a certain limit would ever repay them.

On this board we had people outraged at students being saddled with tens of thousands of pounds in debts all their lives, and at the same time a 'timebomb' warning that most would never repay them: both can't be the reality.

*Paper debt: would not affect subsequent credit rating, would not (according to the mortgage industry) affect the ability to obtain a mortgage, would not necessarily have to be repaid.

We have an academic arguing (this was before the general election) that raising tuition fees would be fairer.

We have UCAS confirming that applications were at record levels this year, including from disadvantaged areas, with universities forced to provide more bursaries and scholarships for students from low income families.

We have a finance adviser stating what I've said about student debt.

If any of this is wrong-headed/questionable, please say so.

[MrGongGong]

The point, on the other hand that you miss - probably out of an ignorance of the facts - is that the 'pledge' had two parts which - and this was not based on a politician's evidence, but an academic's, writing in The Observer: the two 'pledges' were in fact contradictory, so it had to be one or the other: keeping fees down (which neither Labour nor Conservative were going to do) or making the whole system more 'fair'.

The system was basically 'unfair' previously because it provided subsidised higher education for the minority of better off who, culturally, were far more likely to send their offspring to university, the subsidy being paid for by the far larger lower income taxpayers who didn't send their children to university. What was needed was a system which would encourage applications from far more disadvantaged students, and for those who benefited financially from a university education to pay towards it. As the financial adviser pointed out, it was closer to a 'graduate tax' with the 'debts' being paper debts*, like paper profits. And the fees themselves were, in many cases, notional fees because on the one hand no fees were payable in advance and only those who earned above a certain limit would ever repay them.

On this board we had people outraged at students being saddled with tens of thousands of pounds in debts all their lives, and at the same time a 'timebomb' warning that most would never repay them: both can't be the reality.

*Paper debt: would not affect subsequent credit rating, would not (according to the mortgage industry) affect the ability to obtain a mortgage, would not necessarily have to be repaid.

We have an academic arguing
(this was before the general election) that raising tuition fees would be fairer.

We have UCAS confirming that applications were at record levels this year, including from disadvantaged areas, with universities forced to provide more bursaries and scholarship for students from low income families.

We have a finance adviser stating what I've said about student debt.

If any of this is wrong-headed/questionable, please say so.

I would think the point is that the word "PLEDGE" as well as being the name of a well known (but probably not to students !) household cleaning product is usually taken to mean a commitment to do something NOT to do the opposite.
Having two contradictory "pledges" hardly inspires one with confidence does it !

What all the twisty stuff ignores (again!) is that Clegg (maybe unwisely? but that really isn't the point!) said to students that he "Pledged" not to do something that he then did. It really is very simple, it's a question of being honest, he dressed himself (and the party) up as "honest" and "different' (oh look who is playing that role now !!!!) and then turned out to be dishonest.
What IS encouraging is that the generation of students who he lied to seem to have more honesty and integrity than any of the people who are trying to gain support. When I talk to my daughter and her friends they all say they have less trust and faith in the Lib Dems than anyone else because of this. At least there are some ethical people in the world !!!

Twisty clever lawyer nonsense about how a "pledge" means something else just comes across as dishonest and deceitful.
Ethics costs

The "reality" is that in doing this Clegg destroyed the trust that many in the Liberal party had built up and allowed some rather nasty extreme folks to reap what he sowed. For that he deserves all he gets BUT WE (and the young people who he deceived) deserve better.

[Serial_Apologist]

What was needed was a system which would encourage applications from far more disadvantaged students, and for those who benefited financially from a university education to pay towards it.

But you already had this when higher education was paid for out of the general education budget.

On this board we had people outraged at students being saddled with tens of thousands of pounds in debts all their lives, and at the same time a 'timebomb' warning that most would never repay them: both can't be the reality.

But both is what effectively you've now got, with many universities and colleges wondering how they will continue to operate now that students are leaving qualified but unable to obtain salary-paying jobs commensurate with these costs deliberately incurred, as many foresaw the moment the recession hit, as inevitably it would.

If the Liberal-minded, altruistic world on which the mistaken policy was based really existed, instead of the selfish consumer one the Liberal Democrats sold their soul to in agreeing to join ther Tories in the coalition, the better-off would have recognised it as in their own best interests to keep paying taxes to fund a free higher education system - even if a fully qualified, fully educationed, well-paid working class favoured the kind of society they would really want to be in, namely one in which "we're all in it together", which I somehow doubt.

[french frank]

But you already had this when higher education was paid for out of the general education budget.

No, you didn't. A debate went on within the party about the 'fairness' of abolishing tuition fees (which works in Scotland much better than it would in England):a comparison was made between Hammersmith & Fulham where 50% of the age-eligible cohort went to university and Isle of Dogs where it was 6%. So H&F would get subsidised education and IoD would subsidise. And back in the past when higher education was 'free' the percentages were probably even more unbalanced because there were fewer higher education institutions, fewer students. With the enormous expansion, funding became more of an issue. And Labour, which introduced tuition fees in the first place, also made extensive cuts in university funding.

"In an interview with the Observer today, Prof Danny Blanchflower makes a case that all our political parties refuse to countenance. Moral as much as financial, Blanchflower's argument is that an admission system allocating university places on merit rather than money demands that the rich support bursaries for the poor through higher tuition fees." [2009]

But both is what effectively you've now got, with many universities and colleges wondering how they will continue to operate now that students are leaving qualified but unable to obtain salary-paying jobs commensurate with these costs deliberately incurred, as many foresaw the moment the recession hit, as inevitably it would.

Then I'm misunderstanding this. Don't the universities get the fees paid by the SLC - which is owned and funded by the Government and devolved bodies? Universities have said they face 'challenges' 'in the short to medium term'. And the point is you haven't got 'both' - a debt is not a debt if you don't have to repay it, which is the situation you describe.

If the Liberal-minded, altruistic world on which the mistaken policy was based really existed, instead of the selfish consumer one the Liberal Democrats sold their soul to in agreeing to join ther Tories in the coalition, the better-off would have recognised it as in their own best interests to keep paying taxes to fund a free higher education system - even if a fully qualified, fully educationed, well-paid working class favoured the kind of society they would really want to be in, namely one in which "we're all in it together", which I somehow doubt.

I'll take the first two lines on the chin :-) but after that you're not talking about a society that has ever existed or which is likely to exist (much though I agree that it would be highly desirable).

The real difference between Scotland and England is that there is no such clear-cut division in the educational aspirations/expectations of the 'better-off' and the 'working class'. In Scotland most children go to their local 'high school', the academic ones stay on to take Highers and then go to (most often) their local university, where a university professor's daughter sits alongside a crofter's son. Free higher education makes sense there.

[french frank]

I would think the point is that the word "PLEDGE" as well as being the name of a well known (but probably not to students !) household cleaning product is usually taken to mean a commitment to do something NOT to do the opposite.
Having two contradictory "pledges" hardly inspires one with confidence does it !

The NUS campaign 'pledge' was sufficiently before the election for simple-minded politicians not to have worked out that they could have been promising two contradictory things at the same time - and the students presumably didn't realise that when they drew up the wording:

"I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.” The Lib Dems delivered what was a fairer system because it has resulted in more disadvantaged students going to university. Who, exactly, suffers financially - and how?

The coalition introduced a package, and you can't separate one bit and say 'That bit was wrong': it's the effects of all the constituent parts taken together that matter. Not to you, I realise. Hope you'll prefer life under UKIP.

[Beef Oven!]

I can see exactly how many posts you deleted (three) and exactly what they contained.

You are either trying to mislead, or the technology can't pick up what I was doing. Check it out again and please stop accusing me of something I haven't done.

[MrGongGong]

The NUS campaign 'pledge' was sufficiently before the election for simple-minded politicians not to have worked out that they could have been promising two contradictory things at the same time - and the students presumably didn't realise that when they drew up the wording:

"I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.” The Lib Dems delivered what was a fairer system because it has resulted in more disadvantaged students going to university. Who, exactly, suffers financially - and how?

The coalition introduced a package, and you can't separate one bit and say 'That bit was wrong': it's the effects of all the constituent parts taken together that matter. Not to you, I realise. Hope you'll prefer life under UKIP.

Which part of "I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament" isn't a promise to do something ?

THAT'S what people are angry about
Breaking promises..... IT really is THAT simple

The Lib Dems delivered what was a fairer system because it has resulted in more disadvantaged students going to university.

It probably IS a fairer system BUT that really isn't the point because they broke a promise.
There was a more honourable was to act which would have been to say that the election was inconclusive rather than betray those who voted


and then the conclusion is that Clegg and co facilitate the Tories and usher in the bigots
WELL done Nick
Shafted us all good and proper

As you would say to a 10 year old
"It's much better to tell the truth and be honest"

And now watch as the Lib Dems seek to blame others for the mess they created

Some efffing choice that is (NOT)

The breaking of a promise is (IMV) the reason why people don't trust the Lib Dems anymore
(which is a great shame in many ways)

We could go round this (again) a thousand times though.

[french frank]

We could go round this (again) a thousand times though.

You could. It is necessary to hold more than one fact in your head at the same time to construct an argument. Though I am heartened that you agree: "It probably IS a fairer system ..." QEF & QED

It's worth wondering whether people think a 'fairer system' should be 'fair' to the privileged minority who benefit, or fair to society as a whole. The evidence I've used is not (to me) obviously politically biased. A first step to getting S_A's educated working class is to get the (English) working class to understand the benefits of education; then gradually overhaul the school system in this country so that there are no institutions which can boast providing 49 Prime Ministers.

To get back to Scotland. My experience of teaching in a Scottish University was that there were no 'public school' students except those from England who couldn't get in to Oxbridge so looked to the 4 Ancient Universities - St Andrew's, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow in that probable order of preference.

[MrGongGong]

You could. It is necessary to hold more than one fact in your head at the same time to construct an argument. Though I am heartened that you agree: "It probably IS a fairer system ..." QEF & QED

I don't think that was ever in question !
But if you ask University students about trust and honesty then you will get a different balance all together

It's easy to make out that something is somehow more complicated than it really is
When I speak to folks in their 20's its the "honesty thing" that is most important even if it might make them less well off.

It does IMV illustrate how our politics seems to be almost entirely composed of those who make appeals to self interest rather than saying "Vote for us and we will try and make the world better for everyone".

But looking at the results of this
if there are "winners and losers" then Labour "WON" the Council Election by a rather large margin.