Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

Surprised Gary hasn't picked up on this yet.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

I do and I wouldn't IF I had had to pay tuition fees..This is my point entirely that many useful and highly intelligent possible future teachers,doctors,solicitors,research scientists,engineers etc are put right off because of tuition fees.I KNOW this for a fact as I see many students who won't even consider accepting the burden.A country gets the workforce it deserves if it won't pay the necessary basic funding for it..

However I don't want to derail this thread too far.

---------- Post added at 10:11 ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 ----------

Thanks for the link.:)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

If the level of commitment is such that if a few thousand pounds extra, ignoring the prodigious maintenance loans, is too much to invest in their future perhaps it's best they don't follow that course. My wife took her degree, tuition fees and all, on without a second thought or a moment's hesitation because it's what she wanted to do. It's a fairly simple equation and if the frankly fairly small tuition fee scares people away one has to question their dedication, especially if it is specifically tuition as you suggest rather than maintenance loan and other costs that is the issue.

If you want tuition fees have a look at this.

The experiences of Canada, the USA, Australia and several other countries throughout the world would appear to disagree that tuition fees are a critical impediment to educating the work force. The amount of people piling into university to study a variety of somewhat precariously relevant courses appears to suggest it isn't greatly dissuading people.

No-one likes paying but they can either take out a loan and pay it back on a means tested basis or pay higher taxes later. They pay either way with the difference that one way takes account of ability to pay while the other to an extent does not.

Winding this into the thread I find the Tories' suggestion of keeping tuition fees but expanding bursaries far more realistic than the abolition of tuition fees which was the point I was trying to make somewhere along the line, that with finances as they will be for the foreseeable future tuition fees will at best be held static.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

It matters not one jot who gets in.
Once the feet are under the table, if you work you will be hammered, plain and simple.
Their manifesto's are not worth the paper they are written on, income tax and vat will rise, regardless of what they say.
They bailed the banks out and now whoever gets in wants that burden lifted asap.
The only real vote is a no vote.
Send a message that people have had enough of the corruption of politics and the spin.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

Especially when you consider that if they do the right degree (and a good one), it should increase their potential earnings way beyond the tuition fees..

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

Wow. A truthful candidate at last! :Yikes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8659440.stm

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

He's the candidate for North West Norfolk. Should put him outside of Nokia range for now.

Good on him for telling it like he sees it though.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

For all readers of The Sun...

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/hungparliamenttr

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

oh you mean Arthur ;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rdsutch01a.jpg

If Voting Changed Anything They'd Abolish It...

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

Yes and lets face it they've 'saved the world', 'broken the cycle of boom and bust', 'taken control of our borders', 'sorted out crime and antisocial behaviour', 'ended child poverty' etc. etc. etc. so ought to have plenty to boast about.... :rolleyes:

New Labour's supporters ought to dwell on the fact that it really isn't difficult to spend money like so much confetti. This is especially true when it is money you don't have but can borrow (or 'steal' for that matter), the real pain of paying for which is passed on to future generations but the kudos for which sates even the most egotistical politicians.. The difficult bit is 'earning' the money then ensuring every penny of it is spent as wisely as possible, providing the required level of services etc. whilst ensuring value for money for the taxpayer so that more is achieved for less. New Labour have consistently done the reverse - achieved so much less for so much more! Brown's 'prudence' was nothing more than a cynical con trick aimed at the gullible, the naive and those so clouded in judgement by their disdain for the previous Tory government that they'd have voted for and accepted just about anyone or anything other than them. Now they're on the run, having finally been rumbled as the opportunist idiots they are, we can expect any amount of negative campaigning, smears and slurs from people who turned political spin into an art form.

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

Bigot!











;)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

So much less compared to what?

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

absolutely any one who is against Brown is a bigot [new labour new rules:)

Re: The 2010 General Election Thread: Week 4
 

Compared to what they should have achieved had they been more prudent with the money they spent but all too often sadly wasted.

---------- Post added at 13:01 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------

:confused: .... But New Labour have been telling us for ages that they understand the need for a debate on peoples' concerns surrounding immigration.... :rolleyes: Since coming under much pressure from the possible BNP vote, their candidate in Barking, Margaret Hodge, has been much more 'understanding' of those who're worried about it... Is she a bigot too or just another of those cynical New Labour MPs who say/promise one thing before an election and subsequently do another.