[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Ah, so you're avoiding talking about an ACTUAL waste of tax payers money while speaking at length about what is essentially an investment IF Labour under JC win an election and can successfully push this through parliament.

Do I really need to spell out the fatal flaw in your logic here? Surely you can see it, right?

Wasted? How? No money is wasted that is going to improve vital services somewhere.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

Wasted? How? No money is wasted that is going to improve vital services somewhere.

It's a bribe to keep Tories in power, nothing more nothing less.

You can't be against the idea of wiping Student Debts because it'll cost in the short term by using the NHS as an excuse then ignore the fact that money that could have relieved a lot of the stress the NHS is under has been wasted to keep May in Downing Street. That's the issue here with Brillo's point of view.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

1bn compared to 100bn. Er!

Where did this £100billion figure come from?

[jet]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Where did this £100billion figure come from?

In the article -

Jeremy Corbyn’s plans to cancel all historic student debt would cost £100billion, his education spokesman has revealed...

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by jet

In the article -

How does that work when 80% of all student debt is never paid anyway?

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It got put into the 'When we need to bribe a party to stay in power' fund. Would Brillo agree that the money spent on that bribe would have been better spent on the NHS, I wonder?

It will be...among other essential services. What the heck do you think it's going to be spent on?

[Tregard]

Student debt clearly discourages people from attending UK universities, which will in turn cause a brain drain, and lead to less people studying things such as, for instance, medical sciences.

What do you do if not enough people are training to become doctors?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Tregard

Student debt clearly discourages people from attending UK universities, which will in turn cause a brain drain, and lead to less people studying things such as, for instance, medical sciences.

What do you do if not enough people are training to become doctors?

Blame Jeremy Corbyn, obviously.

Or muslims.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Blame Jeremy Corbyn, obviously.

Or muslims.

.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

.

Fixed that for you <3

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Fixed that for you <3

Ta.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Tregard

Student debt clearly discourages people from attending UK universities, which will in turn cause a brain drain, and lead to less people studying things such as, for instance, medical sciences.

What do you do if not enough people are training to become doctors?

The numbers going to uni will apparently have to be restricted if there is free education for all.

[user104658]

Personally I think everyone should just get building trade apprenticeships instead. Think of all the stuff that would get built! Housing crisis shmousing shrisis, we'd have houses coming out of our ears!

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Personally I think everyone should just get building trade apprenticeships instead. Think of all the stuff that would get built! Housing crisis shmousing shrisis, we'd have houses coming out of our ears!

Sounds like all those pointless degrees that really don't count for much in the real world.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Sounds like all those pointless degrees that really don't count for much in the real world.

Grrr young people and their qualifications!

[the truth]

they only ever pay it if and when they starting earning over £21k

[jennyjuniper]

I would have preferred to see a 'partnership' between the government and student. Where the government pays some of the fees, but the student must pay some also. Sometimes getting something for free is not a good thing.
For example in America the 'obamacare' fiasco. Free health care for poor people seems a brilliant idea, until the hospitals, doctors and drug companies hop onto the 'bump up the price because the public purse will pay anyway' bandwagon and an aspirin cost 25 dollars.
Certainly students are our future and should be encouraged and helped, but they should also be encouraged to take personal responsibility for their own futures, starting with the realisation that if you want something badly, you have to work for it.

[user104658]

Free education for all, higher entry requirements across the board, if I'm being honest. Get rid of the situation we have now where many jobs that realistically don't require higher education nonetheless have a "must have a-degree-any-degree" checkbox to tick on the application form, and also make it that you need more than two C's and a swimming certificate to get into University.

Have to admit that I am a bit of an academic snob. I believe that getting into University should be based purely on ability, not financial considerations or anything else, and I also quite strongly believe that academia is being dramatically "dumbed down" with being turned into tuitions fees factories where they will accept pretty much anyone in order to harvest their cash, regardless of whether or not they will actually thrive in higher education.

Also, schools need to stop pushing so hard for 18 year olds to go straight to University out of the school gates! SOME people truly have a lath in mind and a course set at 18. A very small number of people. Most would benefit hugely from having a few years to actually figure out what they want to do, rather than heading off to university "because everyone else is". I definitely would have. I trotted along to Uni "because that's what you do next the teachers said so" and swapped degrees three times, never went to classes, ended up dropping out without a degree because I had zero motivation in the first place. Now that I'm older and wiser (the wisest, let's face it) I would absolutely love to go back into academia, but it's not financially or practically realistic, at least not until my wife graduates and is earning.

However I honestly believe that if I hadn't "rushed" to Uni at 18 and had taken 2 or 3 years to actually think about it, I would have gone in much more focused in the first place.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Free education for all, higher entry requirements across the board, if I'm being honest. Get rid of the situation we have now where many jobs that realistically don't require higher education nonetheless have a "must have a-degree-any-degree" checkbox to tick on the application form, and also make it that you need more than two C's and a swimming certificate to get into University.

Have to admit that I am a bit of an academic snob. I believe that getting into University should be based purely on ability, not financial considerations or anything else, and I also quite strongly believe that academia is being dramatically "dumbed down" with being turned into tuitions fees factories where they will accept pretty much anyone in order to harvest their cash, regardless of whether or not they will actually thrive in higher education.

Also, schools need to stop pushing so hard for 18 year olds to go straight to University out of the school gates! SOME people truly have a lath in mind and a course set at 18. A very small number of people. Most would benefit hugely from having a few years to actually figure out what they want to do, rather than heading off to university "because everyone else is". I definitely would have. I trotted along to Uni "because that's what you do next the teachers said so" and swapped degrees three times, never went to classes, ended up dropping out without a degree because I had zero motivation in the first place. Now that I'm older and wiser (the wisest, let's face it) I would absolutely love to go back into academia, but it's not financially or practically realistic, at least not until my wife graduates and is earning.

However I honestly believe that if I hadn't "rushed" to Uni at 18 and had taken 2 or 3 years to actually think about it, I would have gone in much more focused in the first place.

Good thoughts, I agree with a lot of this. I know you don't like clappys (or so you say haha) so I'll give you one.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Free education for all, higher entry requirements across the board, if I'm being honest. Get rid of the situation we have now where many jobs that realistically don't require higher education nonetheless have a "must have a-degree-any-degree" checkbox to tick on the application form, and also make it that you need more than two C's and a swimming certificate to get into University.

Have to admit that I am a bit of an academic snob. I believe that getting into University should be based purely on ability, not financial considerations or anything else, and I also quite strongly believe that academia is being dramatically "dumbed down" with being turned into tuitions fees factories where they will accept pretty much anyone in order to harvest their cash, regardless of whether or not they will actually thrive in higher education.

Also, schools need to stop pushing so hard for 18 year olds to go straight to University out of the school gates! SOME people truly have a lath in mind and a course set at 18. A very small number of people. Most would benefit hugely from having a few years to actually figure out what they want to do, rather than heading off to university "because everyone else is". I definitely would have. I trotted along to Uni "because that's what you do next the teachers said so" and swapped degrees three times, never went to classes, ended up dropping out without a degree because I had zero motivation in the first place. Now that I'm older and wiser (the wisest, let's face it) I would absolutely love to go back into academia, but it's not financially or practically realistic, at least not until my wife graduates and is earning.

However I honestly believe that if I hadn't "rushed" to Uni at 18 and had taken 2 or 3 years to actually think about it, I would have gone in much more focused in the first place.

Posted without reading any replies just before, up to here and...this reply is magnificent tbh. This is a huge problem with unis (and a lot of other areas of life)...cash matters more than ability.

I kind of understand now why it could be a good idea to abolish fees actually, as yes, there would probably be more demand which would lead to people being turned down...but is this necessarily a bad thing? More applications in this case just mean that it truly would go on ability rather than money.

[joeysteele]

I have no objection to funds going to N Ireland but if funding was there why haven't the govt and DUP got it there before
Rather than it only come about 'conditionally' for DUP votes in the UK parliament.
That is what stinks to high heaven as to this deal.
Also Arlene Foster appears to have a cloud over her financial dealings possibly too.

As for the student debts it is an aspiration of Corbyn's to end this sorry state of students leaving Uni with over £50,000 of debts round their necks already in life.
However it is a longer term thought motion rather than an overnight venture.

Student debts are rising big-time,I was fortunate to have funding and family to get me through Uni.
Many do not.

Also,while true,it only has to be paid back once a certain salary is begun.
It still remains a debt and so gets taken into account when applying for mortgages etc.

It is time this culture, made far worse by the coalitions trebling of fees and then the other moves mentioned as to interest,was now addressed.
Hopefully with moves downward as to levels of student debts and seeing them off altogether.

[user104658]

Jet your position seems to be arguing that bribery is OK so long as the bribe money is then "spent on good things". At some point you're going to have to accept that not everyone feels that way. A bribe / extortion is immoral in politics no matter what it's spent on, in the opinion of many, so constantly arguing that it's all good because it will be spent in good ways for NI is going to prove fruitless for you. It isn't that people aren't hearing you or that they don't understand that. It's that it's irrelevant. Whether they spend it on mustard gas or a cancer cure for kittens, is totally besides the point when it comes to discussing the morality of bribery in the first place, or whether a government spending money on bribes is justifiable.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Jet your position seems to be arguing that bribery is OK so long as the bribe money is then "spent on good things". At some point you're going to have to accept that not everyone feels that way. A bribe / extortion is immoral in politics no matter what it's spent on, in the opinion of many, so constantly arguing that it's all good because it will be spent in good ways for NI is going to prove fruitless for you. It isn't that people aren't hearing you or that they don't understand that. It's that it's irrelevant. Whether they spend it on mustard gas or a cancer cure for kittens, is totally besides the point when it comes to discussing the morality of bribery in the first place, or whether a government spending money on bribes is justifiable.

Where have I said bribery is okay? Quote me? I was arguing the point and ONLY the point that the money won't be wasted (as someone posted it will be) as it will do good.

As for morality - people get all moralistic only when it suits them. Supporting a known terrorist sympathiser is totally immoral in my view, but obviously it matters not a jot to many. They just conveniently refuse to believe it and morals be damned.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Jet your position seems to be arguing that bribery is OK so long as the bribe money is then "spent on good things". At some point you're going to have to accept that not everyone feels that way. A bribe / extortion is immoral in politics no matter what it's spent on, in the opinion of many, so constantly arguing that it's all good because it will be spent in good ways for NI is going to prove fruitless for you. It isn't that people aren't hearing you or that they don't understand that. It's that it's irrelevant. Whether they spend it on mustard gas or a cancer cure for kittens, is totally besides the point when it comes to discussing the morality of bribery in the first place, or whether a government spending money on bribes is justifiable.

You talk of bribery - the cost of Bribery for Corbyn's young voters is more than 100bn. It stinks.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

You talk of bribery - the cost of Bribery for Corbyn's young voters is more than 100bn. It stinks.

But it's harmless ole Corbyn doing the bribing, so it's OK. Get with the programme Brillo.