Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Daily Mail-esque agenda, but how practical are these ideas?

Announcements Posted on
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Ignoring the rest, giving people on jobseekers allowance free transport to work doesn't seem the most logical proposal. Be cheap to implement I suppose!
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pikaboo)
    They're ones which I wish in an ideal world would actually work (me being a huge champagne socialist), which I think would solve our social and financial difficulties. Please explain why they don't already exist:

    - Make all obesity-related and drug-abuse treatment etc exempt from NHS, saving billions

    - Legalise drugs but tax them hugely

    - Return new universities to technical college/Polytechnic status, and set up work experience/apprenticeship schemes within these colleges for the unemployed

    - Cut number of university courses in subjects where graduate employment levels are low, and abolish tuition fees. Those courses which remain are seen as training for future work rather than just further education degrees

    - University courses should all include mandatory work-experience placements in the summer holidays, whether academic placements with older professionals or vocational, and must be passed to ensure successful completion of the course

    - Reduce jobseekers benefits to food, clothing, heat and housing vouchers, with transport to work free

    - Set up more youth clubs and activity centres for 13 - 17 year olds: those too young to go to the pub!

    - Chuck all those young offenders into army-style training camps where they learn real skills and discipline.

    Flames welcome - I really want to understand why we don't already have all of the above!
    I wouldn't abolish tuition fees, as there isn't the money, but would link funding to expected additional earnings, so that the degrees that earn the most money (and thus pay the most tax later) get more funding and are cheaper to do.

    This would mean that the 'mickey mouse' courses would be much more expensive (around what international students pay now so 8500 to 32000 a year) which would essentially force all but the richest of idiots away from them into degrees which will earn them more, helpfully increasing social mobility into the bargain.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BadCoverVersion)
    You don't sound like much of a socialist to me. Champagne or otherwise.

    Almost all of what you've proposed typically come from libertarian or conservative positions.

    The ones which I've put in bold are the ones that seem to me pretty fascist or counter-revolutionary.
    I was about to say, I agree with some of that and I cant stand socialism in any form.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pikaboo)

    - Make all obesity-related and drug-abuse treatment etc exempt from NHS, saving billions

    - Legalise drugs but tax them hugely

    - Return new universities to technical college/Polytechnic status, and set up work experience/apprenticeship schemes within these colleges for the unemployed

    - Cut number of university courses in subjects where graduate employment levels are low, and abolish tuition fees. Those courses which remain are seen as training for future work rather than just further education degrees

    - University courses should all include mandatory work-experience placements in the summer holidays, whether academic placements with older professionals or vocational, and must be passed to ensure successful completion of the course

    - Reduce jobseekers benefits to food, clothing, heat and housing vouchers, with transport to work free

    - Set up more youth clubs and activity centres for 13 - 17 year olds: those too young to go to the pub!

    - Chuck all those young offenders into army-style training camps where they learn real skills and discipline.

    Flames welcome - I really want to understand why we don't already have all of the above!

    Nice try, but here is what I would do instead of what you said.

    - Privatise the NHS

    - Legalise drugs but tax them hugely, we agree here.

    - Remove state funding for higher and further education so everyone pays fully for it.

    -Remove all welfare apart from a bare minimum to be given to people who where born incapable of ever working, be it mental or physical disabilities. So no child benifit, no JSA etc etc for anyone else.

    -Encourage charities to provide our youth with alternatives to booze and drugs.

    -Promote genuine rehabilitation in our prison system, so people can leave and have a real chance of fitting in with the rest of society.

    - Reduce the central government to something incomprehensibly tiny... (a corner office in whitehall preferentially.). Hand over power to local councils.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pikaboo)
    I think you've completely missed my point. Before 1992, polytechnics existed which served to provide education for work and had a strong focus on engineering and applied science (subjects we desperately need to encourage to build up our economy). Now that the Government is subsidising these newly-awarded University institutions heavily in order to award degrees, I think this is a huge mistake.
    forgetting of course that a CNAA awarded Honours degree ( the degree validating body for the Polys ) is an NQF level 6 qualification same as a degree awarded by a university under it's own charter.

    There is nothing to be achieved by reverting any HEI to 'polytechnic status', the vast growth in 'soft subject' degrees is down to Bliar's policy of wanting 50 % of young people in university and the fact his (mal)administration permitted HEIs to expand their offerings in such areas.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pikaboo)
    They're ones which I wish in an ideal world would actually work (me being a huge champagne socialist), which I think would solve our social and financial difficulties. Please explain why they don't already exist:

    - Make all obesity-related and drug-abuse treatment etc exempt from NHS, saving billions


    Flames welcome - I really want to understand why we don't already have all of the above!
    Common suggestion, but the tax added to the price of unhealthy foods means that obese people pay for their treatment. So, it may save billions but it would hardly be justified.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pikaboo)
    They're ones which I wish in an ideal world would actually work (me being a huge champagne socialist), which I think would solve our social and financial difficulties. Please explain why they don't already exist:

    - Make all obesity-related and drug-abuse treatment etc exempt from NHS, saving billions
    No. Virtually every illness has a theoretical degree of personal choice to it. Heart attack? Have you been running for 30 minutes each day in line with government guidance? No? Then **** off.

    - Legalise drugs but tax them hugely
    I think that'd cancel out most of the gains from legalising them, not to mention creating a black market.

    - Reduce jobseekers benefits to food, clothing, heat and housing vouchers, with transport to work free
    Why? Just to punish the unemployed?

    If I give someone a minimal handout for them to live on, I don't give a **** what they spend it on. I'm not some puritanical tosser who'll complain if they occasionally buy cigarettes or beer.

    - Cut number of university courses in subjects where graduate employment levels are low, and abolish tuition fees. Those courses which remain are seen as training for future work rather than just further education degrees
    I have no desire to end the study of history, classics, literature or whatever else you don't think is economically useful enough. There's more to life than productivity, you know.

    - Set up more youth clubs and activity centres for 13 - 17 year olds: those too young to go to the pub!
    Fine, good.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Why would returning new universities to polyechnics make any difference? before 1992 polytechnic institutions existed to run both academic and professional degree at both undergrad and postgraduate level. You could even do PhD's in Poly's. People seem to think that when poly's were upgraded they started to award academic degrees hence degree's besame devaluded. This is a misconception sinse when poly's were upgarded they just changed their names and carried on with what they were doing before. the only major chane was they were no longer under local authority control and they they had the power to award their own degrees as opposed to the degree being awared by a government agency which was the case previously.

    The reason why the goevernment upgraded poly's to uni's in the first place was because they were do alike. The differene betwen a polyechnic and university was negligable.

    And finally, why is it alway the ex poly's that get stick on here? There are lots of universities that used to be polytechnic like institutions incluidng the university of bath, uiversity of warwick and uiversity of loughborough. Would these universitites need to lose their university status too?

    One last point before I stop the rant, would it really be wise to convert places like Trent and Northumbria back into poly's after the huge amount of public funds that have been spent making them into very posh high tech academic learning environments. Some of the ex-poly's have spend in excess of £200 million in the last five years upgarding the outdated poly buildings. What a wate it would be to get rid of them.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pikaboo)
    - Return new universities to technical college/Polytechnic status, and set up work experience/apprenticeship schemes within these colleges for the unemployed
    I don’t think getting Post-1992 Universities (some of which have becomes successful institutions) to revert to being polytechnics is a great idea. The name ‘polytechnic’ has unfortunately been become a synonym for ‘low quality’ and that will not be easily reversed. A better idea is to look at what the good things were about the polytechnic system and see how we can incorporate them in the system as exists now. Evolution rather than revolution.

    The main advantage of the old systems, as far as I can see, was that polytechnics offered courses which were heavily regulated in a systematic way by Council for National Academic Awards. This gave business a lot of confidence in the quality of students produced by polytechnics. The current hotch-potch of accreditation leaves open to question the quality of degrees from institutions which don’t have a long history of academic excellence. Polytechnics also had very high failure rates in the first year of their courses, something which the current funding model does not encourage.

    Further & Higher Education Colleges are currently expanding, and more are offering degree level courses. These are effectively new ‘polytechnics’ in all but name, and provide the kind of vocational courses you’re advocating. I think these should be the focus for increasing the provision of high quality vocational and practical courses – these are a lot cheaper to run that Post-1992 or Polytechnic Universities.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pikaboo)

    - University courses should all include mandatory work-experience placements in the summer holidays, whether academic placements with older professionals or vocational, and must be passed to ensure successful completion of the course
    Oh hell no.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pikaboo)
    They're ones which I wish in an ideal world would actually work (me being a huge champagne socialist), which I think would solve our social and financial difficulties. Please explain why they don't already exist:

    - Make all obesity-related and drug-abuse treatment etc exempt from NHS, saving billions

    - Legalise drugs but tax them hugely

    - Return new universities to technical college/Polytechnic status, and set up work experience/apprenticeship schemes within these colleges for the unemployed

    - Cut number of university courses in subjects where graduate employment levels are low, and abolish tuition fees. Those courses which remain are seen as training for future work rather than just further education degrees

    - University courses should all include mandatory work-experience placements in the summer holidays, whether academic placements with older professionals or vocational, and must be passed to ensure successful completion of the course

    - Reduce jobseekers benefits to food, clothing, heat and housing vouchers, with transport to work free

    - Set up more youth clubs and activity centres for 13 - 17 year olds: those too young to go to the pub!

    - Chuck all those young offenders into army-style training camps where they learn real skills and discipline.

    Flames welcome - I really want to understand why we don't already have all of the above!
    The obesity and drugs one is a bit iffy because a lot of the people being treated have been paying taxes for ages, and just because their lifestyle makes them more likely to cost the NHS, it doesn't mean that they don't deserve treatment. Also, obesity can arise due to poverty as 'fatty' foods tend to be cheaper and quicker to consume. In other words, that one's a difficult one.

    I think with regards to legalising drugs...I think weed should be legalised and used to replace alcohol. It's far less harmful and has less social implications. What you do when you're high can never be as bad as what you do when drunk, etc etc. Just a thought.

    I agree with the rest. Going to University has now gone from a luxury to a right and it's costing people thousands as they go and take 'mickey mouse' courses and end up dissappointed when they cannot get a job. I think only degrees which are very likely to end in jobs should be offered at University. Otherwise, as you said, polytechnics should be set up in order to prepare people who are not getting a degree for the world of work.

    I agree that the youth should have more to do other than go pubbing at the ages of 13-17. I find it quite shocking as to what kids get up to these days and it's really upsetting seeing people in their teens passed out/in a terrible state due to alcohol. And the sad thing is that all this happens out of boredom. If there were more things for teens to get involved with that they would enjoy getting involved with, I think all the problems that come with underage drinking will be dealt with.

    I don't understand why the 'army-style training camp' thing hasn't been done yet. If anything it would really put young offenders off committing crimes. In fact, I think it shouldn't just be narrowed down to young offenders, but any offenders at all!

    Lastly, with regards to benefits, surely jobseeker's allowance just-about pays for those anyway?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 2, 2012
New on TSR

Student in a Million awards

All the results from our prize-giving night

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.