student tuition fees vote [Archive]

Kez

27th January 2004, 20:31

well, maybe its a good thing

Had Blair gone through and lost position, who would replace him? Brown, Prescott, Blunket? fucking great.....they would all be the same shit.

So maybe its a good thing in that next time the Trade Unions will be on full activity, whereas now, theyve only just started working to beat blair, with a string of new left wing Trade unnion leaders. So i think this may be a good thing, in that it weakens Blair and Blairism, while at the same time allowing more time for the left in the party and unnions to start throwing their punches.

Hegemonicretribution

27th January 2004, 20:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:31 PM

Had Blair gone through and lost position, who would replace him? Brown, Prescott, Blunket? fucking great.....they would all be the same shit.

I would probably prefer Brown in the driving seat, he is Labour. He would then take the flack for his poor policies himself, and also have the ability to make better policies as a man as intelligent as him could.

This vote has basically proved the whipping system has become ineffective, and I would not be surprised if Labour changed a number of members for next year. The good thing is that, although not big enough, the rebellion was big enough to stop Labour from ejecting members, they would lose their majority if they tried. A rebellion of this size on a three line whip is exciting.

Just in a very inapropriate, offensive, but justified by the fact I am pissed off mood..wouldn't it have been a better rebellion if a rebel took over as Blunkett's guide and led him to the other booth. :D

monkeydust

27th January 2004, 21:36

I don't think top up fees are as bad as the press has made them out to be, especially given the predicament the government has face on universities, what annoys me more is how the executive completely dominates legilature today.

Simply because of their huge majority, the labour cabinet, or sometimes even a few people are able to create legislation, without consultation or debate and get it made into law. Whats more, Blair likes his close group of bureaucrats to help decision making as well.

So as the executive can pass almost anything without extreme opposition, our country is being run by a group of less than 20 people. It makes me sick.

cubist

28th January 2004, 13:07

too many courses not enough funding thats the problem, theres a degree in cantical choirs how fucking useful

JonP

28th January 2004, 13:18

When i saw that it made my blood boil , i was so pissed of. Especially as im going to UNI soon.

the "you have to pay to have a better future" argument is just stupid <_<

cubist

28th January 2004, 13:27

either way you pay though, as the other option is higher taxes its unfortunate i am not against it as much as i am against it really,

Invader Zim

28th January 2004, 14:18

Yeah I wrote a whole artical of rantage about it and posted it... I didn't see this thread, sorry guys.

Ernestocheguevara

28th January 2004, 14:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 02:27 PM
either way you pay though, as the other option is higher taxes its unfortunate i am not against it as much as i am against it really,
Yeah but they shouldn't need to raise taxes if they stopped spunking funds on fucking pointless illegal wars!! The cost of keeping troops in Iraq could be much better spent and 'White Elephants' like the fucking dome should never have even been made let alone all the fucking money that's been thrown at it since it was opened. Then of course we footed the bill when railtrack went tits up (a private company) and the shareholders needed paying off!! This is where our funds for uni's and education and better NHS could come from.

NB* none of this rant is directed at you! Only the government

Ernestocheguevara

28th January 2004, 14:57

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2004/331/...html?id=np1.htm (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2004/331/index.html?id=np1.htm)

Ernestocheguevara

28th January 2004, 14:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:36 PM
I don't think top up fees are as bad as the press has made them out to be, especially given the predicament the government has face on universities, what annoys me more is how the executive completely dominates legilature today.

Simply because of their huge majority, the labour cabinet, or sometimes even a few people are able to create legislation, without consultation or debate and get it made into law. Whats more, Blair likes his close group of bureaucrats to help decision making as well.

So as the executive can pass almost anything without extreme opposition, our country is being run by a group of less than 20 people. It makes me sick.
I think this will clear up your obvious dissillussionment about TUF's

The Truth about top up fees (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2004/331/index.html?id=np1.htm)

Scottish_Militant

28th January 2004, 15:49

Blair Avoids Defeat… For Now (http://www.marxist.com/Europe/blair_avoids_defeat.html) a good short article

cubist

28th January 2004, 19:06

ernesto, i couldn't agree more unfortunately bLIAR and his croneys aren't in agreement with us.

"just look at the dome what a waste of funds"

Ernestocheguevara

31st January 2004, 08:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 08:06 PM
ernesto, i couldn't agree more unfortunately bLIAR and his croneys aren't in agreement with us.

"just look at the dome what a waste of funds"
No Cephas they are not!!! They are only considering the interests of big business!! I did mention the dome above too!! Never been never will it's just a huge monument to what this country (Britain) has become a sick capitalist state not that it wasn't before it's just got worse! Some would say we had it better under the Tories, I almost, almost am begining to believe it myself :wacko:

Kez

31st January 2004, 09:47

Ernesto, how on earth were we better than under the tories? i think you should stop listening to your shriveling parties propaganda. Were we better with the miners strikes? were we better when the unions had no say in government? were we better when no money was put into the health or education sectors?

Yes, blair is a twat, and he will be removed, but i dont see how on earth Labour is even close to being as bad as tories, remember the poll tax?

Kez

31st January 2004, 10:13

lol, i just got a booklet from the union USDAW saying "Whats the Labour govt ever done for us?" and in it its got all the progressive initiative Labour has put forward. Im not saying Labour for one minute is pro-worker, fuck no, but your party's shreaks are falling on deaf ears. You think the tories would have done this? (http://www.usdaw.org.uk/campaigns/minimum_wage/news/1073053876_1297.html) lets not forget the few anti-union laws they rolled back. And this was at a time when the unions were right wing bastards like Sir Ken Jackson etc, imagine what can be done with the new wave of left tradee union leaders

monkeydust

31st January 2004, 12:10

Originally posted by Ernestocheguevara+Jan 28 2004, 03:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ernestocheguevara @ Jan 28 2004, 03:59 PM)
[email protected] 27 2004, 10:36 PM
I don't think top up fees are as bad as the press has made them out to be, especially given the predicament the government has face on universities, what annoys me more is how the executive completely dominates legilature today.

Simply because of their huge majority, the labour cabinet, or sometimes even a few people are able to create legislation, without consultation or debate and get it made into law. Whats more, Blair likes his close group of bureaucrats to help decision making as well.

So as the executive can pass almost anything without extreme opposition, our country is being run by a group of less than 20 people. It makes me sick.
I think this will clear up your obvious dissillussionment about TUF's

The Truth about top up fees (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2004/331/index.html?id=np1.htm) [/b]
I don't think I'm disillusioned actually, I'm only trying to offer a balanced view. Remeber I never said top up things were a good thing, merely not as bad as they're made out to be in the circumstances.

The link you posted simply seems to say no to top up fees, no to high taxation, grants for students to live on etc. This is all very well and good, but the money can't come from nowhere. I very much agree with you that the Dome and the war were very much unnecessary, what's done is done however and I feel that Labour would get just as much cynicsm if they increase taxation further.

Myself, I would take the Lib-dem approach of increasing tax by a penny on the pound.

Kez, nite that Ernesto never said it was better under the Tories, only that some would say it was. Although I don't agree with the Conservative ideology, I have to concede that Thatcher was far more efficient in spending than Labour is today. For example Labours internal governmental and Civil service spending has over doubled since 1997.

Knowledge 6 6 6

31st January 2004, 14:17

interesting that here in Toronto, tuition fees have just risen in my own university as well...

no connection to the Brits right? ha! :P

Ernestocheguevara

31st January 2004, 15:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 10:47 AM
Ernesto, how on earth were we better than under the tories? i think you should stop listening to your shriveling parties propaganda. Were we better with the miners strikes? were we better when the unions had no say in government? were we better when no money was put into the health or education sectors?

Yes, blair is a twat, and he will be removed, but i dont see how on earth Labour is even close to being as bad as tories, remember the poll tax?
Kez, wind your neck in read posts properly and try to understand this thing called sarcasm and wit (I don't posses much wit I know) and stop listening to the bollocks spewed outta your alleged parties mouth, I don't know why Ted insists on slating us but believe me it's not mutual, I have never heard a bad word against the SA or TG come outta our party you may have I ain't, we are, afterall, fighting the same fight!!

I didn't say I personally or anyone in my party said it was better under the tories what I meant was that workers I speak to and other non political or non-leftist people I speak to have started to make claims like this. Yes I remeber the poll tax the Militant headed the campaign against it remeber!!!??? Lets just remeber your wonderous Labour party in there Manifesto promised no top up fees, so if you feel the need to stick up for these lying twats be my guest! Remeber the WMD's remeber the Dome remeber railtrack? And you think this Party can be regained?!?!?! Get real!

Ernestocheguevara

31st January 2004, 16:19

Originally posted by Left+Jan 31 2004, 01:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Left @ Jan 31 2004, 01:10 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 03:59 PM

[email protected] 27 2004, 10:36 PM
I don't think top up fees are as bad as the press has made them out to be, especially given the predicament the government has face on universities, what annoys me more is how the executive completely dominates legilature today.

Simply because of their huge majority, the labour cabinet, or sometimes even a few people are able to create legislation, without consultation or debate and get it made into law. Whats more, Blair likes his close group of bureaucrats to help decision making as well.

So as the executive can pass almost anything without extreme opposition, our country is being run by a group of less than 20 people. It makes me sick.
I think this will clear up your obvious dissillussionment about TUF's

The Truth about top up fees (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2004/331/index.html?id=np1.htm)
I don't think I'm disillusioned actually, I'm only trying to offer a balanced view. Remeber I never said top up things were a good thing, merely not as bad as they're made out to be in the circumstances.

The link you posted simply seems to say no to top up fees, no to high taxation, grants for students to live on etc. This is all very well and good, but the money can't come from nowhere. I very much agree with you that the Dome and the war were very much unnecessary, what's done is done however and I feel that Labour would get just as much cynicsm if they increase taxation further.

Myself, I would take the Lib-dem approach of increasing tax by a penny on the pound.

Kez, note that Ernesto never said it was better under the Tories, only that some would say it was. Although I don't agree with the Conservative ideology, I have to concede that Thatcher was far more efficient in spending than Labour is today. For example Labours internal governmental and Civil service spending has over doubled since 1997. [/b]
I was not insulting your intelligence, but if you think a £30000 debt is 'not to bad' you must be pretty rich! And what of the divide it will cause because the poor who can't pay the fees will not be able to go to Uni and the rich will? Sorry about the link must have posted the wrong page, go to our homepage and follow the link from there, it's in my sig.

monkeydust

31st January 2004, 17:49

I understand this Ernesto, and we are on the same side, I am only saying that tny're not as bad as they're made out to be. It's not a case of the rich can go to Uni and the poor can't at all. The whole concept behind top up fees is one of 'pay later'. Essentially, you pay when you have the money, the poor also get grants.

Whilst they're not as bad as they're made out to be, I don't think they're a god thing at all, if only because the cost of living isn't taken into the equation. Also, the fact that some courses cost more than others etc.

My greater concern lies with the governments goal to get 50% into Uni. To get 50% of people to pass a degree, by definition the Degrees need to get easier. I was talking to a philosophy teacher recently who claims the workload os half what it was 30 years ago.

Furthermore, if 50% of people have a degree, more is needed for distinguishment, what this means is that the relative value of each qualification almost 'goes down a step'. A PHD being worth as much today as a degree before, simply because of the number of people with the basic degree. All this means is people staying in education for longer and longer, getting into increasing debt.

I also think Degrees being run in Klingon and surfing is quite ridiculous.

Socialsmo o Muerte

31st January 2004, 17:53

Though it's annoying that the tuition fees are going to rise, the concession of making it so you don't pay untill you graduate (like the loans) is very appealing. If that system was in force now, we'd all be about £600 better off. Of course, at the end of it all, it is still increasing the cost 3 times and most graduates will earn sufficient money to have to pay the fees off.

As for someones comment about welcoming a Gordan Brown takeover; I thought that before the events of the two days prior to the vote. What he did in basically buying votes was sickening and infuriating. To think that, had he not used money and concessions to sway some rebels on the last day, the top-up fees would be abolished for now just makes the taste even more bitter. To think that our only anti-elitist members of parliament can be bought out fills me with doubt about the coming years in this country.

And I second Ernestocheguevara's point about the "not so bad" £30000 debt. I'm afraid for the majority of students, leaving with a £30,000 debt will be abolsutly horrible. Those of us in university now are likely to leave with , on average, around £18,000 and I'm dreading that. Of course, that average is brought down by those rich kids who have such prudent economics (oh no, I mean rich daddies) that they leave with little debt.

monkeydust

31st January 2004, 17:58

Just another thought, perhaps the Government decided Top up fees as a better solution to taxation simply because they gain more that way. Why? Because the difference between paying with loans and taxation is that the government will actually make the profit from the interest of the loan.

I know the loans are set at low interest rates, however they must gain massive revenue from 50% of nations youth's £30,000 loans

katie mccready

31st January 2004, 21:03

how the fuck did he win he is such a fuck head by 5 votes fucking hell i cant go to uni cus i live in stoke and we have lo wage in stoke.

zapata's_ghost

31st January 2004, 22:41

blairs just now restricting university to the rich kids, who the fuck is going to go to uni if they know theyre gonna be 15k+ in debt when they come out? labour was supposed to be a socialist party, now theyre more fucking conservative than the tories themselves.

Ernestocheguevara

2nd February 2004, 17:17

A thought I had about TF's was, why not right off the debt if the student graduates? This way it would deter people from taking costly courses then either flunking it or purposely dropping out! Surely this would encourage students to learn and pass! Those who chose to flunk out or fail could then foot the bill themselves on a loan basis. If you do pass you then get a job, therefore pay taxes, and are then essentially paying for the degree you took.

Lumping huge debts on people after they graduate is outrageous!! These people need to live and as soon as they buy a place and get a mortgage they essentially have another £30,000 to pay off on top of a huge mortgage (due to outrageous house prices) a mere two bedroom flat can cost anything up to and over £100,000 now.

Zapata's Ghost how right you are! Labour has moved from left, to centre left, to centre right!! Tony Bliar is an A CLASS Ass Hole!! I wouldn't even wipe him!!! :D

Kez

2nd February 2004, 18:09

Ernesto,
You say Blair is an ass, but then u help him by trying to make his position easier by attempting to take the most advanced layers away from beating him. Fortunately the SP's success has gone down from 6000 members to 1000. If you hate blair, kick him outta the Labour Party, where then u can work with the masses. Make it easier or make it harder, which do you choose?

Also, whats your opinion of competing with Labour Strongholds where BNP is standing, where u lower Labours votes and allow easy access for BNP? whats your opinion of that?

Kez

2nd February 2004, 18:16

Originally posted by Ernestocheguevara+Jan 31 2004, 04:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ernestocheguevara @ Jan 31 2004, 04:59 PM)
[email protected] 31 2004, 10:47 AM
Ernesto, how on earth were we better than under the tories? i think you should stop listening to your shriveling parties propaganda. Were we better with the miners strikes? were we better when the unions had no say in government? were we better when no money was put into the health or education sectors?

Yes, blair is a twat, and he will be removed, but i dont see how on earth Labour is even close to being as bad as tories, remember the poll tax?
Kez, wind your neck in read posts properly and try to understand this thing called sarcasm and wit (I don't posses much wit I know) and stop listening to the bollocks spewed outta your alleged parties mouth, I don't know why Ted insists on slating us but believe me it's not mutual, I have never heard a bad word against the SA or TG come outta our party you may have I ain't, we are, afterall, fighting the same fight!!

I didn't say I personally or anyone in my party said it was better under the tories what I meant was that workers I speak to and other non political or non-leftist people I speak to have started to make claims like this. Yes I remeber the poll tax the Militant headed the campaign against it remeber!!!??? Lets just remeber your wonderous Labour party in there Manifesto promised no top up fees, so if you feel the need to stick up for these lying twats be my guest! Remeber the WMD's remeber the Dome remeber railtrack? And you think this Party can be regained?!?!?! Get real! [/b]
"Some would say we had it better under the Tories, I almost, almost am begining to believe it myself" - Thats what you said

I dont see you questioning why Militant people (where your party boss is from) were in Labour when Callaghan was pushing thru right wing legislation, what are the qualititive differences. Comrade, i know youve recently joined SP, but read other sources and read real history.

How was Labour regained after Callaghans years (when trade union power was cut, was in Middle east supported by Callaghan) when it turned into a genuinley socialist party by Foot, why can it not be done 2day? Now go ask your local party hack for the answer.

Voice of the Revolution

2nd February 2004, 18:35

Any sane person should be having suspicions about the New Labour goverment. In 1997 when Blair defeated the conservatives for the first time in god only knows how many years, he asserted that 50% of the nations youth would go to university.

There is a fundamental flaw with that plan however, quite simply 50% of the nations youth is not university material, and would be better off in more menial tasks.

So then we have an influx of students studying Mikey Mouse degrees, all supporteed by the goverment, and so in turn the tax payer. This also undermined the quality and perception of the other, more traditional degrees, because others were being churned out factory style.

The other downside is that the universitys simply cannot afford to keep that many students studying, and the cash strapped goverment (having spent all its money elsewhere *cough*war*cough*). This means that the goverment needs more money for university and fast, and that is where top up fees come in.

In short top up fees are an easy way out for a goverment who has wasted vast ammounts of money on a stuiped mistake.

Saint-Just

3rd February 2004, 09:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 06:58 PM
Just another thought, perhaps the Government decided Top up fees as a better solution to taxation simply because they gain more that way. Why? Because the difference between paying with loans and taxation is that the government will actually make the profit from the interest of the loan.

I know the loans are set at low interest rates, however they must gain massive revenue from 50% of nations youth's £30,000 loans
The interest on the loan generally matches the rate of inflation, so they make no profit and lose money because they could make more if they invested or saved the money.

One you get a loan, if you do not spend it, you could make more money with the loan, although very little, perhaps 1.5% every year.

Ernestocheguevara

3rd February 2004, 16:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 07:09 PM
Ernesto,
You say Blair is an ass, but then u help him by trying to make his position easier by attempting to take the most advanced layers away from beating him. Fortunately the SP's success has gone down from 6000 members to 1000. If you hate blair, kick him outta the Labour Party, where then u can work with the masses. Make it easier or make it harder, which do you choose?

Also, whats your opinion of competing with Labour Strongholds where BNP is standing, where u lower Labours votes and allow easy access for BNP? whats your opinion of that?
Do you honestly think that by kicking Blair out that the Labour party is just suddenly gonna become a people's party, what planet are you on??? The same ideals are still gonna be deeply rooted in that party, whoever takes his place will carry on where Blair left off (or will we see your grand Ted Grant as PM :P)The Labour party only has big business' interests at heart and not the workers! How else would Blair have won the Top up fees bill?

I think Blair and the Labour party does a pretty good job of turning over votes to the far right- such as the BNP- themselves, I don't think working within the unions and having 5 elected councillors is 'turning votes over to them'. The BNP work on the dillusionment of the current Government and the failures of the other parties along with tagging on to issues such as Asylum seekers which is 'Hyped up' by papers like The Sun in order to get votes. I don't know how you can say we steer votes into the hands of these Nazi's!! And anyway I've already argued all this out with your 'Hack' Tavershkawhathisname, then he dissappeared! And whats wrong with getting educated by a 'hack' I ain't gonna learn otherwise! Nuff said on this, this is not the thread for it!