This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

TSR General Election 2005/6

Reply 160

Daragh

15

Multiplexed

http://www.respectcoalition.org/img/gallery/p765.jpg

RESPECT party policy on the environment?

Reply 161

thebucketwoman

10

deej2

"We love Tony, we love...."

Sorry, I get like that sometimes, they told me it would be just like bandcamp :frown:

Someone misprinted the song sheets this year and wrote 'We love Gordon'.

God knows why...

Reply 162

ChemistBoy

16

thebucketwoman

Someone misprinted the song sheets this year and wrote 'We love Gordon'.

God knows why...

Well, I'm waiting for Gordo, LOL!

Reply 163

Multiplexed

18

deej2

RESPECT party policy on the environment?

No, the RESPECT party policy on the environment:

We know we face a global environmental crisis, one which there has not been the political will to tackle. The problem is not one of population of development; we have the human resources and technology to allow us to build decent societies without destroying the planet. The problem is one of our capitalist system, which distributes resources unequally and alienates ordinary people from the environment. Capitalism puts profit ahead of people and the environment. We need to find ways of living more sustainably, but the goal of sustainable development is not credible within the current system. To save the environment, we need to build a society based on human need, not the need for profit.

Take heed... :biggrin:

Reply 164

thebucketwoman

10

tis_me_lord

I doubt that's the reason they don't want 50% at uni... it's just because 50% of jobs don't require a degree. So it's cutting waste which is a big difference.

If you believe its a good thing then fine, that was discussed a while back here:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/t120216.html

But the Conservatives do want to reduce access to University and that was my original point.

Reply 165

Beekeeper

OP

13

thebucketwoman

Labour want 50% of young people in higher education by 2010, Conservatives don't. They want less people attending University. A simple way of cutting the costs, I admit.

What, we want less than 50%? Of course, it is stupid to have so many people in university, what a waste.

You said, however, that the tories want to "reduce access" which is complete and utter garbage, the tories have never stated anything of the sort.

Reply 166

thebucketwoman

10

Beekeeper

What, we want less than 50%? Of course, it is stupid to have so many people in university, what a waste.

You said, however, that the tories want to "reduce access" which is complete and utter garbage, the tories have never stated anything of the sort.

Right... so what else do you call, erm 'reducing' the number of Students applying from what they are currently?

tis_me_lord

I doubt that's the reason they don't want 50% at uni... it's just because 50% of jobs don't require a degree. So it's cutting waste which is a big difference.

It is not just degree level qualifications people get at institutions called universities though.

The Labour party wish to increase access to vocational training and qualifications from the age of 16 upwards.

It is possible for qualifications to be taken beyond the age of 18, sometimes run by institutions called university which are vocational in nature. These sorts of qualifications should be encouraged to provide an increase in highly skilled members of the workforce and, I believe, these qualifications can and should be used to help reach the target of 50% of people 'going to university'.

It will ensure people are able to get a good start to their working life, provide enough highly qualified people in academic circles and also provide an increase in vocationally trained people to create a higher skilled workforce in non-academic areas.

Reply 168

tis_me_lord

14

thebucketwoman

If you believe its a good thing then fine, that was discussed a while back here:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/t120216.html

But the Conservatives do want to reduce access to University and that was my original point.

So why did you say it was to cut costs?

Reply 169

thebucketwoman

10

Roger Kirk

It is not just degree level qualifications people get at institutions called universities though.

The Labour party wish to increase access to vocational training and qualifications from the age of 16 upwards.

It is possible for qualifications to be taken beyond the age of 18, sometimes run by institutions called university which are vocational in nature. These sorts of qualifications should be encouraged to provide an increase in highly skilled members of the workforce and, I believe, these qualifications can and should be used to help reach the target of 50% of people 'going to university'.

It will ensure people are able to get a good start to their working life, provide enough highly qualified people in academic circles and also provide an increase in vocationally trained people to create a higher skilled workforce in non-academic areas.

Exactly, as I said before 50% in Higher Education, not necessarily university. Academic degrees are not the only valuable qualifications.

Reply 170

tis_me_lord

14

Roger Kirk

It is not just degree level qualifications people get at institutions called universities though.

The Labour party wish to increase access to vocational training and qualifications from the age of 16 upwards.

It is possible for qualifications to be taken beyond the age of 18, sometimes run by institutions called university which are vocational in nature. These sorts of qualifications should be encouraged to provide an increase in highly skilled members of the workforce and, I believe, these qualifications can and should be used to help reach the target of 50% of people 'going to university'.

It will ensure people are able to get a good start to their working life, provide enough highly qualified people in academic circles and also provide an increase in vocationally trained people to create a higher skilled workforce in non-academic areas.

Yeah, you need a vocational degree to flip burgers at McDonalds...

All it will do for most people is put them in debt to do something they could have done anyway with some on the job basic training.

You talk about all these skills, but they just aren't needed for 50% of jobs. I think it's a waste of time.

Reply 171

thebucketwoman

10

tis_me_lord

So why did you say it was to cut costs?

It is to cut costs. They believe that having an educated society is a 'waste' of money, so they just cut cut cut.
And then after that they claim that they're on the student's side because they no longer have to introduce tuition fees. :rolleyes:

--------------

tis_me_lord

Yeah, you need a vocational degree to flip burgers at McDonalds...

All it will do for most people is put them in debt to do something they could have done anyway with some on the job basic training.

You talk about all these skills, but they just aren't needed for 50% of jobs. I think it's a waste of time.

You want more than 50% of people to work in jobs no more skilled than burger flipping? Labour has higher aspirations for Britain.

Reply 172

tis_me_lord

14

thebucketwoman

It is to cut costs. They believe that having an educated society is a 'waste' of money, so they just cut cut cut.
And then after that they claim that they're on the student's side because they no longer have to introduce tuition fees. :rolleyes:

Having an OVERLY educated society is a waste of money. I know that if I wasn't academically minded I would rather get right into work instead of going through years of training to become "better educated" but really I'm just in huge debt when if I'd gone right into work I'd be on a nice profit.

I think if you would kindly ask the people in question, instead of sitting there making decision for people, you would find that most people would scoff at this 50% having higher education scheme.

Do you believe tories are against studants? All parties are trying to do what is best for them, why would they not... it's just they do this in different ways. I feel getting rid of tuition fees is a very good way of helping students.

Lib Dem!!!

thebucketwoman

You want more than 50% of people to work in jobs no more skilled than burger flipping? Labour has higher aspirations for Britain.

And I'm in the real world.

Of course by flipping burgers I could have a million and one equivelants... but for well over 50% of jobs 20+ years of training and debt is not necessary.

What jobs really need it... teachers, doctors, lawyers... is this 50% of the population?

Reply 175

Steve Stifler

thebucketwoman

You know I wasn't being serious don't you...

You mean you political types have senses of humour!? :eek:

tis_me_lord

And I'm in the real world.

Of course by flipping burgers I could have a million and one equivelants... but for well over 50% of jobs 20+ years of training and debt is not necessary.

What jobs really need it... teachers, doctors, lawyers... is this 50% of the population?

More jobs need training. Plumbers, electricians, agriculture workers, hairdressers, chefs are just a small list of jobs which need high levels of training.

Some of these have serious shortages in the country or are problematic for people to get into due to the difficulty of on the job training, or the unwillingness/unableness of people to provide on the job training. To try and help people get into these careers and to help the country by cutting the shortages an increase in vocational qualifications at higher levels is needed....most vocational qualifications on offer now are aimed at people around the age of 16/17. It can be difficult for older people to get on these courses. Making some on a level with degree type qualifications (perhaps without making them degree level qualifications if that is not though necessary) we would essentially be allowing them to be accessed in the same way as degree level course and hence making them easily accessible to everyone.