UK general election

[blibbka]

I knew I shouldn't have said that.

Well, there's more to politics than Iraq, isn't there? Give me some other reasons as to why I shouldn't vote Labour, or do you think that it is an issue of such importance that if you were against the war, you should vote against Labour no matter what?

[Matt W]

How 'bout ID cards? Where are you on that?

[rcne]

Veritas Party, the Silk with the nationalistic plan. Most European nations are having serious discussions on how to effectively deal with open immigration.

Silk has a plan. This party is what 3 days old? I'd follow closely to see how much of an impact he makes, maybe not directly, but look to the other parties to 'lean' more nationalistic.

[G. Adams]

Veritas is gonna die a swift death. Silk is unstable and unreliable as a party leader, there is no binding vision behind it, he won't be able to raise neccesary funds, he doesn't have the manpower on the ground to campaign for him etc

Nationalism is anti-rational, and it better stay on the fringe.

As for Labour, the reasons to oust them are as follows:

Blair is losing touch. It's not his fault, I kind of like the guy, deep deep down, but anyone who stays in the PM's job for an extended period just goes a little mad, as Thatcher displayed towards the end of her reign.

Iraq.

ID cards. They have no place in a liberal democracy.

The continued illegal detention of suspects without due process in Belmarsh. Labour is trampling over the rule of law and centuries old rights.

Labour is too comfortable in government right now. By showing them they are not safe in government will make them respond to public needs better.

[Samildanach]

Damn right G. Adams, I agree with every thing you just said. Both major parties need a good shock to the system and I reckon the lib dems would do that plus I love their idea of scrapping council tax and taxing anyone who earns above 100k at 50%, sounds like a win win situation for me.

[blibbka]

Kilroy Silk is ridiculous. I was listennig to his Statement live on the radio last week and I found the whole thing amusing. I'm sure some people will vote for him though, sadly.

Quote by: Matt W How 'bout ID cards? Where are you on that?

I'm not sure, to be honest. In terms of civil liberties, I think the governent can get hold of plenty of information on us easily enough as it is.

Perhaps ID cards would help the government to control immigration better, and that would have to be a good thing. Personally asylum and immigration are not big issues to me, but it is important that we are percieved to be in control, if only to prevent right-wing exploitation of the issue.

My main problem with ID cards is the expense of introducing them.

I believe Germany and possibly some other Erupoean acountries already have them, and I haven't heard any bad stories from them.

How about the economy? It's strong. Gordon Brown is a good chancellor.

History may show Tony Blair to have been very wise in keeping us strongly allied with America at the same time as in the heart of Europe?

[blibbka]

Quote by: G. Adams Veritas is gonna die a swift death. Silk is unstable and unreliable as a party leader, there is no binding vision behind it, he won't be able to raise neccesary funds, he doesn't have the manpower on the ground to campaign for him etc Nationalism is anti-rational, and it better stay on the fringe. As for Labour, the reasons to oust them are as follows: Blair is losing touch. It's not his fault, I kind of like the guy, deep deep down, but anyone who stays in the PM's job for an extended period just goes a little mad, as Thatcher displayed towards the end of her reign. Iraq. ID cards. They have no place in a liberal democracy. The continued illegal detention of suspects without due process in Belmarsh. Labour is trampling over the rule of law and centuries old rights. Labour is too comfortable in government right now. By showing them they are not safe in government will make them respond to public needs better.

So you will vote Lib Dem as a protest vote?

I don't believe ID cards are as much of a threat as you suggest.

How about some positive reasons to vote for other parties?

[G. Adams]

I'm voting Lib Dem because i'm a card carrying member, I was just providing reasons not to vote Labour.

Positive reasons to vote Lib Dem:

An additional penny on income tax in order to support the education system, bringing back grants possibly.

An increase in tax on income above 100k a year to support the health and pensions system.

Pro-European.

Pro-proportional representation. I feel this reason alone should be why anyone who wants to vote for third parties should support LibDem's. PR will make you vote be as valuable as possible, and your voice recognised.

Scrapping council tax for a local income tax, so that OAP's won't be forced out of the homes they've worked their lives to pay for.

LibDem's will seriously look into the issue of cannabis legalisation, rather than sit on their hands trying to please all sides as Labour has done.

[Pooeypants]

As far as ID cards are concerned, I don't mind. They've had it for decades in Hong Kong and last year I had to register for the latest version with a smart chip. What is all the fuss over it about?

[Chris the Chees]

I could never vote Labour after the tuition fee's lies.

Being a student I am not best pleased with our illustrious leader.

[blibbka]

Someone's got to pay for higher education. Why should Joe Bloggs pay for you to get a better education?

Granted a lot of jobs are benefitial to the country as a whole.. But, for example: Every year thousands of people enroll on fine art courses. About ten of them continue in a related career, the rest end up in admin jobs. Why should I pay for their cultural holiday? And then there's Media Studies, Ancient History, Philosophy, etc.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: blibbka Someone's got to pay for higher education. Why should Joe Bloggs pay for you to get a better education? Granted a lot of jobs are benefitial to the country as a whole.. But, for example: Every year thousands of people enroll on fine art courses. About ten of them continue in a related career, the rest end up in admin jobs. Why should I pay for their cultural holiday? And then there's Media Studies, Ancient History, Philosophy, etc.

Because, I and people like me, will be saving your (or Joe Bloggs as you call him) life when you are in hospital, defending you should you ever have to go to court, managing your money at the bank, doing your accounting, teaching your children, developing new medication, running the country, planning your towns, etc.

It is also worth noting that you won't be paying for my education or anyone else’s, I am almost willing to guarantee that the majority of the higher tax brackets is made up of university graduates, even those people doing “fine arts”. What precisely do you think media studies people do… hmm that’s a tricky one, perhaps they go into the highly lucrative media industry? We will end up paying for our own education several times over, paying for your children’s educations, paying to keep criminals in prison, maintain our country, etc. It is also interesting to note that administrative courses are some of the most highly paid going.

If this country did not have university graduates performing vital tasks, this country would collapse. But I'm sure saving you a few quid in taxes is worth it, right? Or maybe we could go for the US system, where the only institutions worth a damn are Ivy league schools, but you can only get in on a scholarship or if daddy owns a mansion, who gives a damn if your too bloody poor.

But then again, why should the tax payer have any financial responsibilities? Lets scrap health care, education, social security, and all those other things the government currently pays for. Wouldn’t that be great?! That way only the rich people can achieve anything in life, because nobody else can even afford to put their kids through school or visit the doctor. In fact why don’t we just return to a feudal system, and remove any centralised system, that way we would have the peasants and upper orders. Would you like that?

Or maybe privatisation is a bad idea in general and we should stay away, and return to the idea’s of a supportive nation for its people?

[G. Adams]

Nicely covered Chris.

On ID Cards...

Theres 3 reasons why we should not have ID Cards

It is an unneccesary tax on me. Why should I pay £80 for a card I don't want, don't need and serves no beneficial purpose? Moreover, why should I pay £1000+ for not producing this card to police, when they have no right to bother me anyway?

Secondly, call me paranoid but I don't trust government. The British government, or at least it's secret services have demonstrated time and time again a hatred for legal left wing movements, and as I'm involved with multiple of those I'm a little wary of them being able to stop me wherever I go.

Thirdly, and most importantly, this is MY country, I am a free and law abiding citizen, so why should I have to carry identification? It is like being tagged as an animal, suggesting that it is the government who controls me, when it is in fact me who controls the government!

ID cards won't stop immigrants or terrorists. The only legitimate reason to introduce them is for ID fraud, but that doesn't give enough reason to make them mandatory.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Chris the Chees I could never vote Labour after the tuition fee's lies. Being a student I am not best pleased with our illustrious leader.

Damn right about that. They promised not to introduce the fees but I guess it was politicians talking...

[blibbka]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Because, I and people like me, will be saving your (or Joe Bloggs as you call him) life when you are in hospital, defending you should you ever have to go to court, managing your money at the bank, doing your accounting, teaching your children, developing new medication, running the country, planning your towns, etc. It is also worth noting that you won't be paying for my education or anyone else’s, I am almost willing to guarantee that the majority of the higher tax brackets is made up of university graduates, even those people doing “fine arts”.

While I expect that the majority of higher earners are made u pof Graduates, I doubt that many of them graduated doing Fine Art (or for the sake of argument, lets just say an arts course). Some University courses are frankly not worth the money spent on them. Suppose I don't mind paying for people to be nurses, but I do mind paying for people to spend 3 years dossing about only to then pursue a career that they could equally have pursued without the University education.

Some courses may give a graduate more earning power, or enable them to fill valued positions in society. Some do not. Why should I have to pay for those that do not?

If this country did not have university graduates performing vital tasks, this country would collapse. But I'm sure saving you a few quid in taxes is worth it, right? Or maybe we could go for the US system, where the only institutions worth a damn are Ivy league schools, but you can only get in on a scholarship or if daddy owns a mansion, who gives a damn if your too bloody poor. But then again, why should the tax payer have any financial responsibilities? Lets scrap health care, education, social security, and all those other things the government currently pays for. Wouldn’t that be great?! That way only the rich people can achieve anything in life, because nobody else can even afford to put their kids through school or visit the doctor. In fact why don’t we just return to a feudal system, and remove any centralised system, that way we would have the peasants and upper orders. Would you like that? Or maybe privatisation is a bad idea in general and we should stay away, and return to the idea’s of a supportive nation for its people?

You are putting words in my mouth by using rhetoric. I never said we should scrap healthcare, education or social security. I am arguing a point of detail. Namely that we need a more vocational system of education.

There is too much emphasis placed on higher education, and on getting a degree. What's more important than having a bit of paper is being able to fill a useful role in society. Some jobs require specialist education. Many do not.

[Chris the Chees]

While I expect that the majority of higher earners are made u pof Graduates, I doubt that many of them graduated doing Fine Art (or for the sake of argument, lets just say an arts course).

You are dismissing an entire faculty? You do realise that the majority of history students (an arts subject) end up working in the financial industry? The industry which is currently the stable diet of the British economy. I have absolutely no doubt that the same can be said of other "arts" subjects.

Some University courses are frankly not worth the money spent on them.

What precisely counts as a course where the money is not worth spending?

but I do mind paying for people to spend 3 years dossing about only to then pursue a career that they could equally have pursued without the University education.

An employer is far more likely to choose a candidate with a degree over a candidate without a degree, in practically any profession (which incidentally is why many former arts students can get jobs in the financial sector). It allows an employer to more accurately gauge who the best candidate for the job is. Thus that individual is far more likely to be earning more money, generating more taxes than had they not had the degree.

Some courses may give a graduate more earning power

All university courses do! It is a sign of commitment, intellect and experience. Think about it, are you going to employ an individual with a GCSE or a Degree?

Why should I have to pay for those that do not?

Like I said, what you are describing does not exist, and even if it didn't then surely you must object to all strictly non-academic classes in schools, public libraries, Museums and all other signs of an intelligent society which make Britain an example of high culture, etc (though clearly with the rise of this kind of opinion, this will soon be a thing of the past)? Nearly all of which are, at least in part, funded by the tax payer.

You are putting words in my mouth by using rhetoric.

No, I am taking your point and explaining its higher social ramifications.

I never said we should scrap healthcare, education or social security.

You clearly do support privatisation in this case though, privatisation essentially is scrapping government funding for social institutions, which include healthcare, education and social security.

There is too much emphasis placed on higher education, and on getting a degree.

Tell me do you have one, a degree that is?

What's more important than having a bit of paper is being able to fill a useful role in society.

I am afraid that this particular scrap of paper and "being able to fill a useful role in society", are virtually tantamount too the same thing.

[blibbka]

Quote by: Chris the Chees You are dismissing an entire faculty? You do realise that the majority of history students (an arts subject) end up working in the financial industry? The industry which is currently the stable diet of the British economy. I have absolutely no doubt that the same can be said of other "arts" subjects. An employer is far more likely to choose a candidate with a degree over a candidate without a degree, in practically any profession (which incidentally is why many former arts students can get jobs in the financial sector). It allows an employer to more accurately gauge who the best candidate for the job is. Thus that individual is far more likely to be earning more money, generating more taxes than had they not had the degree.

I'd like to see some figures to back that up. And what kind of roles "in the financial industry" are you talking about? This would seem to suggest that their expensive history education has not gained them a job in the arts field that they just spent several years training to be involved in. Unless you are saying that working in finance requires a degree-standard knowledge of history? So is it really a good example to use to demonstrate University education working?

Some University courses are frankly not worth the money spent on them. What precisely counts as a course where the money is not worth spending?

Whatever course you're doing, Joke, joke.... Well, I don't think there's a great demand for Fine Artists, say. Been a while since I needed a spot of fresco painting in my living room.

Some courses may give a graduate more earning power All university courses do! It is a sign of commitment, intellect and experience. Think about it, are you going to employ an individual with a GCSE or a Degree?

If it gaurantees higher earning and a greater chance of employment, then what's the problem with the student paying for it?

A degree course is not a sign of commitment, intellect and experience. That's snobbery. I know people who do very valuable jobs, work extremely hard, and do not have education above GCSE level.

Why should I have to pay for those that do not? Like I said, what you are describing does not exist, and even if it didn't then surely you must object to all strictly non-academic classes in schools, public libraries, Museums and all other signs of an intelligent society which make Britain an example of high culture, etc (though clearly with the rise of this kind of opinion, this will soon be a thing of the past)? Nearly all of which are, at least in part, funded by the tax payer.

It does exist. I have friends who completed University courses in said fields, and are now doing temping jobs where their degree knowledge is completely wasted because the demand just isn't there. If this guy got the job above someone without a degree education then that's just an indictment of the employers' narrow-mindedness.

I think a basic standard of education is important, in all the traditional subjects (including the arts). That's why I am able to have informed and interesting discussion with friends with various educational backgrounds (it is actually eminently possible for someone with *only* GCSE education to be just as bright and informed as someone with a degree).

Just because someone doesn't want to pay for another persons university education, does not mean they have something against culture and intelligence. You seem to be suggesting that University = Intelligent and cultured. What does that say about the vast majority of people who do not have university education? That they aren't that clever and are un-cultured? Don't you think that is kind of snobbish?

You are putting words in my mouth by using rhetoric. No, I am taking your point and explaining its higher social ramifications. I never said we should scrap healthcare, education or social security. You clearly do support privatisation in this case though, privatisation essentially is scrapping government funding for social institutions, which include healthcare, education and social security.

You're not taking my point, you're putting words in my mouth.
I'm not interested in privatising the NHS for example. I believe everybody benefits from the NHS. I don't believe that everybody benefits from somone else's university education.

There is too much emphasis placed on higher education, and on getting a degree. Tell me do you have one, a degree that is?

I have a degree in difficult-buggery.....

What's more important than having a bit of paper is being able to fill a useful role in society. I am afraid that this particular scrap of paper and "being able to fill a useful role in society", are virtually tantamount too the same thing.

You think then that those who do not have degrees are not useful to society?

[Samildanach]

In my opinion we should not be subsidizing university at all. If we need more graduates we can simply import them, theres an oversupply trying to get into Britain as it is. If we must subsidize education then do it in jobs where there is the biggest shortage, nursing and teaching for example.
Fine arts degrees are next to useless in the practical world and should be treated as such.
The main problem is today, just about everyone has a degree making them more undervalued than ever.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: blibbka I'd like to see some figures to back that up. And what kind of roles "in the financial industry" are you talking about? This would seem to suggest that their expensive history education has not gained them a job in the arts field that they just spent several years training to be involved in. Unless you are saying that working in finance requires a degree-standard knowledge of history? So is it really a good example to use to demonstrate University education working? Whatever course you're doing, Joke, joke.... Well, I don't think there's a great demand for Fine Artists, say. Been a while since I needed a spot of fresco painting in my living room. If it gaurantees higher earning and a greater chance of employment, then what's the problem with the student paying for it? A degree course is not a sign of commitment, intellect and experience. That's snobbery. I know people who do very valuable jobs, work extremely hard, and do not have education above GCSE level. It does exist. I have friends who completed University courses in said fields, and are now doing temping jobs where their degree knowledge is completely wasted because the demand just isn't there. If this guy got the job above someone without a degree education then that's just an indictment of the employers' narrow-mindedness. I think a basic standard of education is important, in all the traditional subjects (including the arts). That's why I am able to have informed and interesting discussion with friends with various educational backgrounds (it is actually eminently possible for someone with *only* GCSE education to be just as bright and informed as someone with a degree). Just because someone doesn't want to pay for another persons university education, does not mean they have something against culture and intelligence. You seem to be suggesting that University = Intelligent and cultured. What does that say about the vast majority of people who do not have university education? That they aren't that clever and are un-cultured? Don't you think that is kind of snobbish? You're not taking my point, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not interested in privatising the NHS for example. I believe everybody benefits from the NHS. I don't believe that everybody benefits from somone else's university education. I have a degree in difficult-buggery..... You think then that those who do not have degrees are not useful to society?

Someone who leaves university with a (good) history degree demonstrates a great capability for reasearch and evaluation. This is not to say that someone who does not have a degree will have less of an ability, it's just they havn't proven themselves in a way that can be evaulated. The situation may be shit, but thats how it is. It goes further than just degrees. I have a friend who has been training as a bodyshop worker, and is damned good at it. He can pass all the tests neccesary to give him a qualification, but he can't afford the time off from work to do them. If he doesn't take the time off, he won't get the qualification that will allow him to move easily to another job. Royally screwed.

Okay, fine arts is a good example of a largely crappy subject in terms of the benefits it bestows. However, most university's are looking to cut courses, and as this is one I can't imagine quite bringing in great amounts of money, many will disapear. We will be left with only high class university's teaching it, meaning fewer fine art students, which should also make them better students. Win win.

However, I feel your trying to to expand your objection to courses from frivilous ones like fine arts to other arts subjects such as politics, sociology, anthropology etc These subjects do serve purposes and produce "useful" citizens in the end.

The problem with students paying for our university education because we get better paying jobs is because those better paying jobs come with higher taxes. Those taxes are more than enough to support future students in their studies.

A degree is not a sign of commitment? 3-4 years of study doesn't demonstrate application to your field of interest? And any study who comes out of university with a good degree does have intellect, because they have achieved expertise in their area. A degree however isn't neccesary to achieve that expertise, but the best way to demonstrate it.

And this sobbery business. It's not. It's just the truth. Uni' grad's take part in election's more than none grad's, which shows that they are educated well enough to care about taking part. University gives you more than the degree, it put's you in situations with a large group of similarly interested people, driving you forward further in your learning and understanding. It gives you experiences those who do not go to university simply cannot get.

Many students do leave university and go into fields not connected with their work, or crappy temping jobs to fill the gaps while you wait for one to turn up. This is because their CV is not competitive enough any more. Your friend, as should others, should do more to improve it in order to get the job. Go volunteer, go gapping (a real gap year, not one of those crappy useless ones), do something that makes you stand out. We live in market economy and you have to be competitive if you want to come out on top. But this does not mean university is useless. At most, it means universities lack the facility to prepare students for how hard they are going to have to work after uni, as well as in it. This is a problem that can be fixed without ruining the current system for everyone but the rich.

"Just because someone doesn't want to pay for another persons university education, does not mean they have something against culture and intelligence." As has been stated, if we take this route we can privatise everything. i don't want to pay for someones kid's to go to primary school, or OAPS to get state pensions, or to pay for too fat/thin people, alcoholics or smokers health care. When we start thinking "well why should I pay for so and so" we start to break up our society into atomised, egotistical individuals.

"I have a degree in difficult-buggery" That sounds painful.

People without degrees can of course play a useful role in society. However so can 6 year olds, they make good chimney sweeps and their little hands can squeeze into tight machinery when it breaks down. Doesn't mean we should send children out to work though. What we do is educate them, because education, in and of itself, is a benefit to society.

We do not live to work, we work to live. So stop trying to turn education purely into a tool for work. I would like to see a day when 100% of people get degrees in whatever the hell they are interested in, because the better educated a society we are the more free we we shall be.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Samildanach In my opinion we should not be subsidizing university at all. If we need more graduates we can simply import them, theres an oversupply trying to get into Britain as it is. If we must subsidize education then do it in jobs where there is the biggest shortage, nursing and teaching for example. Fine arts degrees are next to useless in the practical world and should be treated as such. The main problem is today, just about everyone has a degree making them more undervalued than ever.

University's can only teach so many students. The more overseas students we bring in, the less room for home graduates we will have. So all we end up doing is teaching the children of the uber-rich from abroad.

Agreed, we should subsidise neccesary courses, particularly nursing. Personally I think stealing the medical staff of other countries, particularly the 3rd world, is bad. They need them more than we do.

The expanse in the number of people who have degrees does devalue them, but that is not a problem. If you went for your degree purely to one-up the next guy for a particular job, then just keep doing that. As I've said before, volunteer, gap, get involved in societies at university, make friends with the right people etc