This discussion is closed.
Tek
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#1
Politically, Labour's official manifesto says that the party will not introduce top up fees. So Labour MPs SHOULD vote against it, because they signed up and have been elected by their people to represent that manifesto. If ANY Labour MP votes for top up fees, he is not following the wishes of his electorate and is voting AGAINST what he vowed to support in Parliament. It makes me sick.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#2
Report 16 years ago
#2
Me too.
0
nikk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 16 years ago
#3
(Original post by Tek)
Politically, Labour's official manifesto says that the party will not introduce top up fees. So Labour MPs SHOULD vote against it, because they signed up and have been elected by their people to represent that manifesto. If ANY Labour MP votes for top up fees, he is not following the wishes of his electorate and is voting AGAINST what he vowed to support in Parliament. It makes me sick.
So how do you suggest the univerisities get the increased funding that they desperately require? I don't think it is fair to introduce a generic tax and make everyone (even non-graduates) pay for the higher education system. If you want a good education you should be prepared to pay for it. Even with the new top-up fees, our education system will still be one of the cheapest in the world (look at America if you want expensive!)
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 16 years ago
#4
(Original post by NikNak)
So how do you suggest the univerisities get the increased funding that they desperately require? I don't think it is fair to introduce a generic tax and make everyone (even non-graduates) pay for the higher education system. If you want a good education you should be prepared to pay for it. Even with the new top-up fees, our education system will still be one of the cheapest in the world (look at America if you want expensive!)
You have missed the point, it isn't about what the top up fee bring.

The manfesto is what parties and MPs are elected on, it is therefore there duty to carry it out (hence the Lords sailsbury convention). Labour has gone back on what they have said, and hence are doing something opposite to what they were elected on.

MPs however...depends on how you think the representation should work, I would prefer them to make decisions based on principles rather than just because the manefesto says they can't. Therefore I think MPs should do what they think is right in thje vote on top up fees...although I'm sure Labour will have a three line whip!
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 16 years ago
#5
MPs should do what their constituents want or act in their best interests or .. etc.

its the whole problem with representative government, in what way are they meant to be representative.
0
Chicken
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 16 years ago
#6
(Original post by Tek)
Politically, Labour's official manifesto says that the party will not introduce top up fees. So Labour MPs SHOULD vote against it, because they signed up and have been elected by their people to represent that manifesto. If ANY Labour MP votes for top up fees, he is not following the wishes of his electorate and is voting AGAINST what he vowed to support in Parliament. It makes me sick.
But there are over 100 Labour MP's who are rebelling against the top up fees. So a lot of them are going along with the manifesto.
0
nikk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 16 years ago
#7
(Original post by corey)
You have missed the point, it isn't about what the top up fee bring.

The manfesto is what parties and MPs are elected on, it is therefore there duty to carry it out (hence the Lords sailsbury convention). Labour has gone back on what they have said, and hence are doing something opposite to what they were elected on.

MPs however...depends on how you think the representation should work, I would prefer them to make decisions based on principles rather than just because the manefesto says they can't. Therefore I think MPs should do what they think is right in thje vote on top up fees...although I'm sure Labour will have a three line whip!
Yes I know, my point is that the top-up fees seem like a reasonable idea. Fair enough, the manefesto said that they would not introduce them but times change - should a party be forced to strictly adhere to every point on their manefesto? I think a manefesto should be used as a guide to see the direction in which a party is pointing, not a strict rule book. It may be different with bigger, more debatable issues such as the EU but I believe TB is doing the right thing.
0
Tek
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#8
(Original post by Chicken)
But there are over 100 Labour MP's who are rebelling against the top up fees. So a lot of them are going along with the manifesto.
Good, and let's hope to God that the Bill is defeated.
0
Tek
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#9
(Original post by NikNak)
Yes I know, my point is that the top-up fees seem like a reasonable idea. Fair enough, the manefesto said that they would not introduce them but times change - should a party be forced to strictly adhere to every point on their manefesto? I think a manefesto should be used as a guide to see the direction in which a party is pointing, not a strict rule book. It may be different with bigger, more debatable issues such as the EU but I believe TB is doing the right thing.
Arrgh, we elected them on what their manifesto said. If it had said "We want top up fees" then they probably wouldn't be in Government today!
0
nikk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 16 years ago
#10
(Original post by Tek)
Good, and let's hope to God that the Bill is defeated.
Tek: I would be interested to here your opinion on my orignal reply to your post (near the top).
0
Tek
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#11
(Original post by NikNak)
So how do you suggest the univerisities get the increased funding that they desperately require? I don't think it is fair to introduce a generic tax and make everyone (even non-graduates) pay for the higher education system. If you want a good education you should be prepared to pay for it. Even with the new top-up fees, our education system will still be one of the cheapest in the world (look at America if you want expensive!)
1) So you're opposed to top up fees in principle, but back them in practice?
2) The money could have come from not wasting time searching for weapons that don't exist in Iraq.
3) Or from abolishing mickey mouse courses which are pretty useless.
4) Or by raising taxes - society benefits from graduates so society should pay for them to be educated.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 16 years ago
#12
(Original post by Chicken)
But there are over 100 Labour MP's who are rebelling against the top up fees. So a lot of them are going along with the manifesto.
but hte West lOthina uestion means that Labour will get it passed, when it doesnt even affect scottish MPs constituencies.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 16 years ago
#13
(Original post by Tek)
1) So you're opposed to top up fees in principle, but back them in practice?
2) The money could have come from not wasting time searching for weapons that don't exist in Iraq.
3) Or from abolishing mickey mouse courses which are pretty useless.
4) Or by raising taxes - society benefits from graduates so society should pay for them to be educated.
if they raise taxes, im going to amercia, where governments get elected on reducing taxes and whats the point of slaving away if all your money gets STOLEN. Anyway they have already had huge increases.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report 16 years ago
#14
(Original post by Tek)
1) So you're opposed to top up fees in principle, but back them in practice?
2) The money could have come from not wasting time searching for weapons that don't exist in Iraq.
3) Or from abolishing mickey mouse courses which are pretty useless.
4) Or by raising taxes - society benefits from graduates so society should pay for them to be educated.
1) I didn't see that in his/her reply.
2) Now irrelevant, let's move on.
3) Some courses you would regard as "Mickey Mouse" have more applicable teaching than so-called "traditional subjects"
4) I agree, and think progressive taxation is the way forward.
0
nikk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 16 years ago
#15
(Original post by Tek)
1) So you're opposed to top up fees in principle, but back them in practice?
2) The money could have come from not wasting time searching for weapons that don't exist in Iraq.
3) Or from abolishing mickey mouse courses which are pretty useless.
4) Or by raising taxes - society benefits from graduates so society should pay for them to be educated.
I am all for top-up fees even though I am going to be in more debt because of them. I believe £3000 a year is a bargin for the education I will be getting and the job I will be qualified for at the end of it.

I do agree that some of the more 'suspect' degree courses that generally don't result in any useful knowledge should not be funded by the government. These 'mickey mouse' courses should have to be fully paid for by the people wanting to study them.

I don't agree with raising taxes across the board. I am already fed up with paying taxes that are used to fund things that will never benefit me. As a result, I don't think it is fair to make other people pay for the uni system.
0
Tek
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#16
(Original post by NikNak)
I don't agree with raising taxes across the board. I am already fed up with paying taxes that are used to fund things that will never benefit me. Another one would be too much.
Oh yeh, me too. I don't use the state school system, so why the f**k should I pay for it?

/sarcasm
0
nikk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 16 years ago
#17
(Original post by Tek)
Oh yeh, me too. I don't use the state school system, so why the f**k should I pay for it?

/sarcasm
I am not talking about that. I am talking about the my national insurance contributions that go towards a pension when I retire. For starters, I doubt the state pension will still be in existance when I retire, and secondly I won't need it anyway as I have my own private pension plans.

I also pay taxes for the NHS even though I have private health insurance.

There are many more examples which I won't get into, but needless to say I am not happy with being forced to pay for things I will not / not need to use.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#18
Report 16 years ago
#18
(Original post by NikNak)
There are many more examples which I won't get into, but needless to say I am not happy with being forced to pay for things I will not / not need to use.
So those who are sick (largely through no fault of their own) should have to pay astronomical hospital bills?
Your idea is fundementally flawed.
0
Tek
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#19
(Original post by NikNak)
There are many more examples which I won't get into, but needless to say I am not happy with being forced to pay for things I will not / not need to use.
HUH? How is my saying that I refuse to pay for state schools because I don't use them any different from your NHS example?

Don't you see that it's society who benefits from all these things? Society as a whole. For the good of society, we have to pay taxes.
0
Alaric
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#20
Report 16 years ago
#20
(Original post by NikNak)
I don't think it is fair to introduce a generic tax and make everyone (even non-graduates) pay for the higher education system. If you want a good education you should be prepared to pay for it.
Well that's how Margaret Hodge tried to justify it too.
She did it by suggesting that a refuse collector shouldn't be paying for a doctor to go to university, which is analogous to what you are suggesting.
Firstly, just as the doctor requires the services of the refuse collector, the refuse collector will probably require the services of the doctor. Indeed it is particularly apparent in this scenario because of them both (traditionally) being public sector workers, however, it still works in to perpetuate the growth of the economy with regard to other jobs also. Mainly because if the graduates were paying extra for their own education the prices the charge for their services and profit margins they retain would be higher, increasing the relative cost of living for the refuse collector.
Secondly, that idea can be further be extended for me to suppose that a refuse collector doesn't require a secondary level education in order to perform his task - why therefore should we fund one? We'll give him a primary education so that he can read things and do basic mental arithmetic out of the kindness of our hearts, shall we say, and that can be paid for through the extra taxes he'll acrue whilst working from the age of 11? Of course very few people will agree with this idea because it degenerates to the previous system of polarised classes where everyone's destination is fixed at birth (refuse collectors not being able to earn enough to enter their children into secondary school).
Such a system is fundamentally unfair, and it is essentially what the government is proposing.

The other aspect is that those that a relatively hit hardest by it are the public sector workers who are paid less than in industry. The only sensible system is the idea of increased national taxation, which could easily be adjusted to have the least effect on low earning households and the greatest effect on very rich households.

Alaric.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (541)
66.46%
No (273)
33.54%

Watched Threads

View All