MonteZuma Posted May 4, 2005 Report Posted May 4, 2005 Also killing tuition fees is something I REALLY need before I hit Uni lol (I'm estimated to come out with a 20k debt )<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hmmm. Removal of tuition fees seems like a good idea to me too, but is it? In Australia, university costs were (and maybe still are?) shared by government and students (50/50). Students could pay their half up front, for a discount, or ac!@#$%^&*ulate a debt that was at first interest free, but is now indexed to inflation. Graduates repay their debt through the tax system. The amount that they repay depends on their income level. Low income earners don't have to repay anything until they earn more money. Although this bugs me, because I prefer the idea of free education for all, and I think it is unfair to dump big debts on young people that will, on balance, contribute to society more than average, I think it is probably the best system. Anything that is totally free will be abused. That means resources are used inneficiently and I suspect the overall standard of service that is delivered will fall. The same thing applies to any government benefit....medicine, transport, education, the arts, etc, etc, etc.
SeVeR Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 Don't get me wrong, i'm not some extremist right winger, but the labour government is going overboard with helping people in need. Their main 'aim' appears to me making everyone in the country a 20k earner whether you deserve it or not. Right now i could start taking crack, leave me degree, and sit around doing nothing important at all and i'd probably get the government to give me good accomodation and a job that would earn me almost as much as someone who just finished a physics degree (incidently thats what i'm doing... forgive me.. i'm posting whilst drunk, sorry if you frown upon that). I don't hate labour, they just seem overly.... communist! Whether Blair was dishonest about Iraq really doesn't bother me, the UK made no difference at all anyway because Bush would have been all over Saddam no matter what they did. Blair was just trying to support Bush which makes him appear slightly "poodleish?" (for lack of a better word) but who cares. He's just failed to keep many of his promises. The main thing i think thats pissed off lots of people is that he intorduced so much beurocracy.. i've had to fill in so many forms ovfer the last couple of years that i could have have taken that time to p!@#$%^&* my degree years ago.. the guy is so !@#$%^&*-bent on using statistics to validate his policies that he's no longer bothered about what makes a difference. he's only bothered about what looks right when he bats off some attack from the tory party in the PM questions. I'm sorry but the UKip do really want to cut us off from everyone. they seem to be under the illusion that becomiing independent will make us a better country. It may do in the short term but this view is so self-centred i can't but help to be disgusted with it. i would rather we co-operated with other countries and found some common ground rather than being different out of some patriotic prejudiced view from people that would enjoy seeing the rest of europe fall into poverty. I value every human being as equal and jnust as important as any other person in the UK, these people do not, they are the sorts of people who are proud when the English Army goes to Iraq and kills a bunch of muslims... although thats generalising an awful lot it does really touch on the reality of Ukip. They are like the morally acceptable version of the BNP. Sorry, i shouldn't really post whilst drunk but i hope my grammar is acceptable.. geeze my housemate is throwing up in the toilet... hmm, ok well i'm not trying to insult anyone by what i've said, its just an honest view that probablyu generalises more than it ought too... ok i'll stfu now.
Paine Posted May 5, 2005 Report Posted May 5, 2005 Exit polls show labour majority of 66.---EDIT -- Sunderland south goes to labour with a swing of 3.9% away from it.
Dav Posted May 6, 2005 Author Report Posted May 6, 2005 Labour have got a majority government buy thus far have lost 47 seats. Conservaitive have gained 33 and lib dem gain 11
Dav Posted May 6, 2005 Author Report Posted May 6, 2005 Lib dem here, shame they didnt take norwich south
SeVeR Posted May 6, 2005 Report Posted May 6, 2005 voted lib dem. although we lost guildford by 0.7% to the !@#$%^&*ed tories, how unlucky is that! there was only 350 votes in it. labour only got about 10% of the vote which was funny.
Paine Posted May 6, 2005 Report Posted May 6, 2005 Too young to vote.-- Woulda voted lib dem though. Wouldn't have made much difference though... Cons!@#$%^&*uency: JarrowStephen Hepburn (Labour) 20,554 votes 60.5% (-5.6%) Bill Schardt (Liberal Democrats) 6,650 votes 19.6% (+4.6%) Linkson Jack (Conservative) 4,807 votes 14.1% (-0.6%) Alan Badger (United Kingdom Independence Party) 1,567 votes 4.6% (+2.5%) Roger Nettleship (Safeguard the NHS) 400 votes 1.2% (+1.2%) Majority |13,904 (40.9%) Turnout |33,978 (55.0%)5.1% swing from labour to lib dem though.
Recommended Posts