10.11.10 - Demolition.

[immense]

..and thats part of the problem, there are too many people going to univesity with too many mickey mouse courses being run. That aside though, address my point - Labour have lied on this issue aswell, so why Jake are they [Labour] any better than the current coalition government?

because ever since i've been conscious of politics it has been under labour rule and i have had a fabulous life. their policies have personally helped my family and even saved lives. i've had good healthcare, a wonderful state education and been given the opportunity to attend a decent university. something i wouldn't be able to do under these new policies.

[-:Undertaker:-]

because ever since i've been conscious of politics it has been under labour rule and i have had a fabulous life. their policies have personally helped my family and even saved lives. i've had good healthcare, a wonderful state education and been given the opportunity to attend a decent university. something i wouldn't be able to do under these new policies.

But Labour introduced the policy in the first place and lied about it.

Do you enjoy being taken for a mug?

In regards to the raise itself - you go out and get a job and pay for it. The only reason i'm opposed to this is because we're spending more money on the likes of the European Union and foreign aid, whereas I would rather have it spent here at home on the likes of University. But you and your party support more spending on likes of the EU and foreign aid don't you Jake? so where would you make cuts? I don't see why your all so opposed, the Tories are increasing overall goverment spending and spending it on your favourite things like the EU and foreign aid. (which you've all supported for over a decade).

The usual case of 'I dont like them because they are blue'.

[immense]

But Labour introduced the policy in the first place and lied about it.

Do you enjoy being taken for a mug?

In regards to the raise itself - you go out and get a job and pay for it. The only reason i'm opposed to this is because we're spending more money on the likes of the European Union and foreign aid, whereas I would rather have it spent here at home on the likes of University. But you and your party support more spending on likes of the EU and foreign aid don't you Jake? so where would you make cuts? I don't see why your all so opposed, the Tories are increasing overall goverment spending and spending it on your favourite things like the EU and foreign aid. (which you've all supported for over a decade).

The usual case of 'I dont like them because they are blue'.

No, not at all. I would be in favour of some sort of increase providing the money would be invested into Higher Education which isn't the plan. The plan is to make the individual pay - fair enough? Only if you're middle class. My family would support me going to University with the higher fees and I respect that I'm lucky. However, my housemate for example is firmly working class - it wouldn't be worth his while coming to University to be straddled with 40K+ debt. The working class are more adverse to debt. Also, Labour didn't want to cut 100% of the funding to some subject (arts + humanities - ironically most people who study the latter work for the Government anyway) and safe guard subjects they see as more important (science and maths). It's disgusting.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, not at all. I would be in favour of some sort of increase providing the money would be invested into Higher Education which isn't the plan. The plan is to make the individual pay - fair enough? Only if you're middle class. My family would support me going to University with the higher fees and I respect that I'm lucky. However, my housemate for example is firmly working class - it wouldn't be worth his while coming to University to be straddled with 40K+ debt. The working class are more adverse to debt. Also, Labour didn't want to cut 100% of the funding to some subject (arts + humanities - ironically most people who study the latter work for the Government anyway) and safe guard subjects they see as more important (science and maths). It's disgusting.

Anyone is adverse to debt if they cannot pay it. If you do well in university it doesn't matter what class you are, when you come out it depends on how well you have done which determines what job you get. Instead of playing the usual class nonsense, actually think about it and use some common sense. Labour lied to you and introduced this system in the first place but you just dismiss that because they are red.

Class is irrelvent once you get past high school provided you do well (which again is why the grammar school system should be brought back in so that the poorest are able to attend the best schools).

In regards to funding i'll ask again; So where would you make these cuts Jake?

[immense]

Anyone is adverse to debt if they cannot pay it. If you do well in university it doesn't matter what class you are, when you come out it depends on how well you have done which determines what job you get. Instead of playing the usual class nonsense, actually think about it and use some common sense. Labour lied to you and introduced this system in the first place but you just dismiss that because they are red.

Class is irrelvent once you get past high school provided you do well (which again is why the grammer school system should be brought back in so that the poorest are able to attend the best schools).

In regards to funding i'll ask again; So where would you make these cuts Jake?

Of course it matters what class you are. You assume that anybody can go to uni in your original statement. This, perhaps may be the case at the moment but apply a pinch of common sense to the situation and we can realise that it won't be the case come 2012. Therefore, it will determine what job people get because they won't be able to acquire a degree. Also, to think class doesn't come into it is sheer ignorance. I live in the real world. My friends can't all come to university because they have to help their single mum pay the bills. Maybe you've led a sheltered, protected life but not everyone comes from a stable middle class background.

Tax. Not cut.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of course it matters what class you are. You assume that anybody can go to uni in your original statement. This, perhaps may be the case at the moment but apply a pinch of common sense to the situation and we can realise that it won't be the case come 2012. Therefore, it will determine what job people get because they won't be able to acquire a degree. Also, to think class doesn't come into it is sheer ignorance. I live in the real world. My friends can't all come to university because they have to help their single mum pay the bills. Maybe you've led a sheltered, protected life but not everyone comes from a stable middle class background.

Tax. Not cut.

No it doesn't matter what class you are once high school is over (I will give you that, since the end of the grammar school system wealth and class have mattered) because the universities judge based on your grades which you achieved in your A Levels - not whether or not you are poor. You then, once in university, go out and get a job to pay off those debts you run up - yes some rich people may have their parents pay it off for them, but thats like inheritance - some people recieve more than others, its a family decision.

In regards to tax, you mean take more money out of the real economy (the private sector) thus making unemployment worse? have you learnt nothing from the 1970s? even Communist Cuba are cutting back the public sector now because they cannot afford it.

[immense]

No it doesn't matter what class you are once high school is over (I will give you that, since the end of the grammar school system wealth and class have mattered) because the universities judge based on your grades which you achieved in your A Levels - not whether or not you are poor. You then, once in university, go out and get a job to pay off those debts you run up - yes some rich people may have their parents pay it off for them, but thats like inheritance - some people recieve more than others, its a family decision.

In regards to tax, you mean take more money out of the real economy (the private sector) thus making unemployment worse? have you learnt nothing from the 1970s? even Communist Cuba are cutting back the public sector now because they cannot afford it.

Those people who haven't brought up in and around money in the sense that they have seen their parents struggle to pay the mortgage aren't going to be as open to the idea of university - which gives the individual opportunities - as much as people who have had a comfortable childhood. That is inevitable I'm afraid. On tax, it's not ideal, of course it isn't - neither is the world. However, it is fairer to get taxed on what you earn. Unfortunate for everyone, of course. Also, as I've already mentioned yesterday, it would be worth trying to get some of the billions of tax evasion back.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Those people who haven't brought up in and around money in the sense that they have seen their parents struggle to pay the mortgage aren't going to be as open to the idea of university - which gives the individual opportunities - as much as people who have had a comfortable childhood. That is inevitable I'm afraid. On tax, it's not ideal, of course it isn't - neither is the world. However, it is fairer to get taxed on what you earn. Unfortunate for everyone, of course. Also, as I've already mentioned yesterday, it would be worth trying to get some of the billions of tax evasion back.

A poor excuse, the poorest are often the best at handling money because they are most sensible with it.

No its not ideal is it Jake, its not ideal that private businesses close down while government continues to waste billions and billions. Its not ideal that more money is taken out of peoples pockets when they are already struggling with lost jobs, higher bills and constantly rising taxation. If its not ideal then dont advocate it, its far from ideal - its disasterous to raise taxes.

Government spends too much, it spends what it does not have - just as when you take out a loan, you'll live the high life - but one day that bill will arrive on your doorstep and you'll have to pay it back.

[immense]

A poor excuse, the poorest are often the best at handling money because they are most sensible with it.

No its not ideal is it Jake, its not ideal that private businesses close own while government continues to waste billions and billions. Its not ideal that more money is taken out of peoples pockets when they are already struggling with lost jobs, higher bills and constantly rising taxation. If its not ideal then dont advocate it, its far from ideal - its disasterous to raise taxes.

Government spends too much, it spends what it does not have - just as when you take out a loan, you'll live the high life - but one day that bill will arrive on your doorstep and you'll have to pay it back.

That is ridiculous. So because the poor have money issues they are more prepared to go to university to struggle further? You said mine was a poor excuse well that is bordering on insanity. What you said was void too because not as many jobs would be lost if tax was increased in proportion to your annual salary. Tax Justice found £70 billion is lost through tax evasion and a further £25 billion lost through tax avoidance. Fair? Is this fair?

Now the banks are owned by the tax payer they too could be used to benefit the people of the country. Some of the mass profits could be used to invest in public services. Also, like Ed Miliband, Labour leaded I think Trident could be reviewed which would save another £78 billion over 3 years.

Also, back to university as that's what this is about. Spending cuts to unis will lead to less place being available - less skilled workforce - in turn less attractive to the foreign economy which won't want to invest in us as much. Funny how Cameron knows the importance of this (a la his trip to India) yet still goes through with his brain-dead ideas.

[-:Undertaker:-]

That is ridiculous. So because the poor have money issues they are more prepared to go to university to struggle further? You said mine was a poor excuse well that is bordering on insanity. What you said was void too because not as many jobs would be lost if tax was increased in proportion to your annual salary. Tax Justice found £70 billion is lost through tax evasion and a further £25 billion lost through tax avoidance. Fair? Is this fair?

Yes, they are.

The idea which people like yourself prefer to advocate, that the poor are simple people who are going to remain poor for the rest of their life is absolute and utter nonsense. The cleverest will suceed because they'll pay it off when they get a high-flying job - whether they are poor, middle class or upper class. If not, then the rich will have theirs paid off by family (nothing you can do about that, its a fact of life that some people are richer than others).

In terms of tax, on one hand I agree - but tax should be lowered overall anyway. If you tax these companies then they will simply move elsewhere as is what happened in the 1970s. Why do you think the United States flourished in comparison to the Soviet Union? Watch the first part of the video below, a quick lesson in simple and basic economics;

Now the banks are owned by the tax payer they too could be used to benefit the people of the country. Some of the mass profits could be used to invest in public services. Also, like Ed Miliband, Labour leaded I think Trident could be reviewed which would save another £78 billion over 3 years.

Then nobody will invest in the banks. The banks will then go the same way as the railways, telephone companies, water companies, gas companies, electric companies etc etc when we nationalised them here many decades ago until they were finally freed by the Thatcher Ministry.

In terms of Trident, you want to scrap our best defence system? the same logic was adopted by the wackos in the Labour Party and CND back in the 1970s who wanted to scrap our nuclear weapons at a time when the USSR had thousands pointing at our towns and cities.

Also, back to university as that's what this is about. Spending cuts to unis will lead to less place being available - less skilled workforce - in turn less attractive to the foreign economy which won't want to invest in us as much. Funny how Cameron knows the importance of this (a la his trip to India) yet still goes through with his brain-dead ideas.

There are too many people going to university Jake and you know it - there are only so many skilled jobs. The reason why we are running short of so many unskilled jobs is very simple - we tax and regulate small companies too much which leads to unemployment. But thats what you want isnt it? more tax and regulation. Thats fine by me, but you'll end up with mass unemployment.

By which stage you then have a small and dying private sector and an expanding public sector, and of course the private sector is the sector which pays the bills. In an effort to sustain your bloated public sector, you have no other choice but to tax the remaining private sector - and you end up with a total economic collapse.