Oldham East and Saddleworth By-election

[oafc0000]

You really think that it's that wrong that a 23 year old on say, £28k in their graduate job should have to pay back the costs of their education? There's an awful lot of people who get by on a lot less.

 

I think they already did... Its called the tax system...

[oafc0000]

If people choose to go on to higher education, that's fine. But they should be the ones to pay for it. Theory time: Higher education = graduate salary = pay fees comfortably. Unless of course you've acted irresponsibly throughout your education and racked up some hefty credit card bills.

 

They do and should... via tax...

[opinions4u]

They do and should... via tax...

Unless they move abroad.

 

And they pay no more tax than a non-graduate on the same salary.

 

(Still not sure what side of the fees debate I should sit on ... instinct says user should pay; self-interest says I have a 13 year old and I don't want him £30k+ in debt and the believer in the greater good can see the case for the state paying for the whole of higher education with a need to close a good third of our universities and focus on higher standards in those that remain).

Edited December 14, 2010 by opinions4u

[garcon]

The problem is, beag teeets, the numbers don't add up, dear boy.

 

Labour were adamant that 50% of 18 year olds should go to university and do degrees.

 

But doctors, dentists, engineers, financiers and bankers don't make up 50% of the workforce.

 

So all those media studies graduates end up in McDonalds, making the rest of us fat and therefore making hte rest of us pay for them twice - once for their pointless tuition fees and again for the added strain on the NHS.

[oafc0000]

The "why should tax payers pay" argument doesn't wash. The country benefits from the doctors, dentists, engineers, financiers, bankers and like it or not media studies graduates.

 

This is why our taxes pay for people to do degrees as we all benefit. Plus, once that graduate is earning the serious wonga that they allegedly earn then they put money back into the pot via their tax revenue.

 

Alternatively educate no one, let everyone become knuckle scrapping imbeciles who make a standard Jeremy Kyle guest look like Stephen Hawking.

 

Its truly a really :censored: argument... but generally people who believe in a small state and protection of those that have made it at the expensive of the great unwashed think this way... and that is why we have the Tory party

[Zorrro]

via tax...

 

Graduates being taxed at a higher rate. You may be on to something here. Art/Media Studies/David Beckham grads should be taxed at least 60%

[garcon]

I understood the latest Labour policy (although admittedly it's difficult to keep up with all the u-turns) was a "graduate tax". i.e. graduates, once they reached a certain income threshold would pay an additional level of income tax.

 

I can't for the life of me work out how that is better than a graduate loan that is also only paid once the graduate reaches a certain income.

 

It's less efficiient, it has no ceiling, nobody seems to know how it would work, any graduates moving abroad would get away without paying....

 

Of course, if Gordon and Tony hadn't hatched their little plan to remove 2 million 18 year olds from the unemployment figures, then maybe there would still be a manageable number of undergraduate students in a sensible number of established universities and perhaps, if the government of the time saw fit, it might once again become a realistic notion for tuition fees to become part of the wider tax burden.

Edited December 14, 2010 by garcon

[oafc0000]

I understood the latest Labour policy (although admittedly it's difficult to keep up with all the u-turns) was a "graduate tax". i.e. graduates, once they reached a certain income threshold would pay an additional level of income tax.

 

I can't for the life of me work out how that is better than a graduate loan that is also only paid once the graduate reaches a certain income.

 

It's less efficiient, it has no ceiling, nobody seems to know how it would work, any graduates moving abroad would get away without paying....

 

Of course, if Gordon and Tony hadn't hatched their little plan to remove 2 million 18 year olds from the unemployment figures, then maybe there would still be a manageable number of undergraduate students in a sensible number of established universities and perhaps, if the government of the time saw fit, it might once again become a realistic notion for tuition fees to become part of the wider tax burden.

 

Not keen on a graduate tax... There should not be a "tax" on learning... We should tax peoples incomes and leave it there...

Edited December 14, 2010 by oafc0000

[Zorrro]

If I, as a fully grown adult, decided I fancied studying the History of Fine Art at an educational facility, should I expect to pay for the privilege?

[garcon]

Yes, unless you can find some organisation to sponsor you.

[Zorrro]

But, essentially, someone has to pay for it, right? Because I'd imagine the tutor would be demanding a salary, plus there are always various administrative costs to cover. But because I want to study something I'm (hypothetically, believe me!) interested in, and could potentially lead to a career, surely I should be allowed to learn at no cost to myself or a potential sponsor? Surely you and everyone else who pays tax should see me through?

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

The equation in Oldham East and Saddleworth is probably the same as the equation in Oldham West and Royton, or indeed in Hackney North and Stoke Newington.

 

£3,000 a year for three years = £9,000. Add living costs and we're talking between £20,000 and £25,000.

 

£9,000 a year for three years = £27,000. Add living costs and we're talking roughly £40,000 for a three-year honours degree.

 

However Mickey Mouse a lot of higher education is (don't bother spending £40,000 on a philosophy degree, even if Plato is your tutor) degrees are still desirable, as are good universities. But a lot of people cannot stomach £40,000 in a way that they could stomach £25,000. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the policy, the people who will get any blame going are the authors of it, particularly the ones who said they'd do precisely the opposite.

 

Labour paid quite heavily for top-up fees in 2005, and it's seriously in the post for the Lib Dems now - their piety is coming back to bite them in the arse.

[oafc0000]

But, essentially, someone has to pay for it, right? Because I'd imagine the tutor would be demanding a salary, plus there are always various administrative costs to cover. But because I want to study something I'm (hypothetically, believe me!) interested in, and could potentially lead to a career, surely I should be allowed to learn at no cost to myself or a potential sponsor? Surely you and everyone else who pays tax should see me through?

 

My parents paid for me... I now pay for you... and then you pay for the next lot... Basically how taxation works...

 

I don't believe that University is their to just primarily support industry... We need people who have a deep understanding of English, History, the Arts and such like... It in riches us culturally...

 

What winds me up the most is how Education is being pushed as this huge cash cow... The old formula of every £1 spent on University sees £3 return in revenue stands firm. Why cut something that overall makes money than it costs ? Unless of course you are cutting for idealogical reasons

Edited December 14, 2010 by oafc0000

[Stitch_KTF]

However Mickey Mouse a lot of higher education is (don't bother spending £40,000 on a philosophy degree, even if Plato is your tutor) degrees are still desirable, as are good universities. But a lot of people cannot stomach £40,000 in a way that they could stomach £25,000. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the policy, the people who will get any blame going are the authors of it, particularly the ones who said they'd do precisely the opposite.

 

Agreed in principle, however the moderately increased free-market forces will ensure that yearly H.E contributions will never reach £9,000. Unless they're worth it of course.

 

State funded university benefits the universities most, perhaps alongside the thousands of students only there for a 3/4 year beano.

 

 

What winds me up the most is how Education is being pushed as this huge cash cow... The old formula of every £1 spent on University sees £3 return in revenue stands firm. Why cut something that overall makes money than it costs ? Unless of course you are cutting for idealogical reasons

 

I find that hard to believe, at least going forward. Without trying to go into detail and confusing both you and I, I understand a fundamental problem behind the crushing national debt to be the lack of manufacturing jobs/output and consequently export. The vast majority of degrees (supposedly) prepare the student to enter the service sector which remains incredibly bloated and sustainable in the short term only by borrowing or, failing that, inflation. Sorry, 'quantitive easing'.

[rudemedic]

If it cost the country £9k/year to educate me then in university education, the country has gotten a steal, some other degrees might not be the same but I'm guessing in the next few years you'll see a lot more corporate sponsorship in unis and not all of it moral. I stopped believing what politicans said in about 1997- as that was the first election I was old enough to remember and actually understand what's going on. The monster raving party could have won that one for all that it mattered, I'm well aware that none of the big 3 parties actually deliver on their election promises, hence why I don't vote for them (there are other reasons but some of them are highly personal).

 

I have no idea on what will happen for the by-election for OE+S, nor what will happen at the next general election, (there's a bit of me that if I was in Woolas' shoes would have me stand as an independent), however, I'm willing to bet that Nick Griffin keeps his deposit.

 

As for the allegations that Labour was involved in gerrymandering, yes maybe they were, but Saddleworth isn't big enough to have its own MP, and if you put it with Littleborough I have my doubts (without actually looking at the numbers) that it will be big enough either. There seems to be a convention that a combined seat with roughly equal sections in Yorks/Lancs (I'll leave the detail of where bits of Saddleworth lie to others) can't happen, since Colne Valley is actually quite small and could just have easily been combined with Saddleworth.

 

One thing I would suggest is that the odds of BBC doing a question time from Oldham in the not too distant future must be quite good- so if some of you want to make your point on national TV then that is a good opportunity.

 

Incidentally, I hope that this Graduate Tax scheme is better organised than the Student Loans Company is considering today's revelations.

[leeslover]

I don't believe that University is their to just primarily support industry... We need people who have a deep understanding of English, History, the Arts and such like... It in riches us culturally...

 

What winds me up the most is how Education is being pushed as this huge cash cow... The old formula of every £1 spent on University sees £3 return in revenue stands firm. Why cut something that overall makes money than it costs ? Unless of course you are cutting for idealogical reasons

Even if this stat is true it doesn’t tell the full story. There will be people who produce far more than they would have done without studying, there will be many for whom it makes not one jot of difference. If you are using that argument you should actually be arguing against state funding of the none-productive ones.

 

As for culturally enriching people – it is actually possible to read books and have interests without studying a degree course in a subject. I bet there are people reading this who never went to Uni who have read far more books than the average English student.

 

[Zorrro]

I bet there are people reading this who never went to Uni who have read far more books than the average English student.

 

*waves*

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

*waves*

 

Porno doesn't count.

[oafc0000]

Even if this stat is true it doesn’t tell the full story. There will be people who produce far more than they would have done without studying, there will be many for whom it makes not one jot of difference. If you are using that argument you should actually be arguing against state funding of the none-productive ones.

 

As for culturally enriching people – it is actually possible to read books and have interests without studying a degree course in a subject. I bet there are people reading this who never went to Uni who have read far more books than the average English student.

 

Even with too many going to university... Even with some of the mickey mouse degrees out there, by and large the vast majority who go to university benefit themselves AND more importantly the country.

 

I don't get your second statement... You don't see the value of high quality teaching / lecturing in the world of English, the arts and so on ? Personally I am about as cultured as a brick and can't really comment, but given the value I have seen from my own and other degrees I have nothing to suggest that the same would not apply to such subjects.

[oafc0000]

Porno doesn't count.

 

lmao

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

If it cost the country £9k/year to educate me then in university education, the country has gotten a steal

 

...even if you say so yourself.

 

I have no idea on what will happen for the by-election for OE+S, nor what will happen at the next general election, (there's a bit of me that if I was in Woolas' shoes would have me stand as an independent), however, I'm willing to bet that Nick Griffin keeps his deposit.

 

He's barred from standing for three years.

 

Colne Valley

 

Did you mean Calder Valley? There are certain geographical boundaries to consider, which I am sure the independent boundary commission did before independently drawing the new boundaries. Just because the boundary changed happened under a Labour Government does not mean that the Labour Government was the executive decision maker. It's like saying that every land sale by the Church Estates Commissioners was Tony Blair's fault.

 

Incidentally, I hope that this Graduate Tax scheme is better organised than the Student Loans Company is considering today's revelations.

 

Ditto. I found that defaulting on student loans was the way forward. They can't demand the mandatory amount or take it from through PAYE - you decide how much you pay. I pay almost nothing and hope to die before I've paid them back.

 

Even if this stat is true it doesn’t tell the full story. There will be people who produce far more than they would have done without studying, there will be many for whom it makes not one jot of difference. If you are using that argument you should actually be arguing against state funding of the none-productive ones.

 

How do you know how productive you're going to be when you're 18 - or 17 for that matter? The problem is that you have to make a decision about your potential future earnings without the slightest clue about what they will be. That is the unpleasant elitist element of the whole thing. The risk involved is far less if you're from a better-off background, and greater if you're not. There is absolutely no doubt that perfectly able young people from poorer backgrounds will be deterred from going to university, whereas many less able young people from more affluent backgrounds will think nothing of it.

 

One Labour Member - a profoundly humourless Welshman - asked a funny question on that in the House last Wednesday. He said: "The Government's proposals will deter poorer students from going to university, but allow less able students from public schools to do so because of their financial means. Does he agree that Government Members who have not-very-able children in public schools should declare an interest? Will there be time in five hours [of debate] to make all those declarations of interest?"

 

As for culturally enriching people – it is actually possible to read books and have interests without studying a degree course in a subject. I bet there are people reading this who never went to Uni who have read far more books than the average English student.

 

Agreed. I didn't study English and I've read far more literature than the average English student. There's another reason not to study English: why would you want some dusty old fart of a tutor spoiling your book fun with his or her fancy theories?

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

.

Edited December 15, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill

[oafc0000]

Agreed. I didn't study English and I've read far more literature than the average English student.

 

How can anyone actual say this with any confidence ? You spoke to them all or something

[garcon]

Y'know, Mr Tulsehill, once we get off the party political silliness, there's an awful lot in your last few posts that I can agree with.

 

 

[Yard Dog]

Right - going to be a bit contraversial here. The thing i can't understand about this is that, given the population of saddleworth, why the hell are the conservatives putting up the same candidate as last time who failed dismally because (a) he isn't local - just shipped in from Bolton and ( he is coloured.(no- before you all jump on the racial bus - I'm not ethnic bias one way or the other) but knowing the majority of people in saddleworth a local white conservative candidate would win the seat easily.

 

Even if what you say about Saddleworth voters is true (and I personally think you are wrong, btw), they probably only make up about a 3rd of the total people eligible to vote in O/M E & Sadd'wth. Joe Fitzpatrick reckons Kashif Ali will start off with about 7,000 votes from the Asian community.