£11billion tuition fee bribe saw 18 to 24 year olds rush to vote for Labour as turnout for the age group rose to 74%

High turnout among younger voters has been credited for boosting Labour’s results. A surge in voters aged 18-24 was believed to have been fuelled by the party’s promises to end university tuition fees and reinstate maintenance grants for the poorest students – costing £11billion a year – and to increase the minimum wage.

Some pundits claimed the turnout for the age group was as high as 72 per cent after the number was tweeted by a youth vote activist and retweeted by Labour MP David Lammy. More than a million new voters registered to vote after the election was announced, and Labour won the majority of seats where turnout was up by more than 5 per cent. Overall turnout was 68.7 percent, an increase of 2.6 percentage points from the 2015 general election. Polling expert Lord Ashcroft said 67 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds had voted Labour, compared with just 18 per cent who supported the Conservatives.

Support for Labour remained high among 25 to 34-year-olds with 58 per cent saying they had voted for the party, compared with 22 per cent for the Conservatives. Polling stations in university towns such as Nottingham, Canterbury and Southampton saw queues of students waiting to vote.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4590356/11billion-tuition-fee-bribe-saw-young-vote-Labour.html#ixzz4ja2clPyE

The other reason as to why Corby did so well. He played off the selfish nature of our youth today. Who where in the past people were thankful for how the state looks after us. Have instead turned to one that demands everything on a plate and wants everything for free. This is the sad reality of the materialism age we now live in. There is little work ethic now, where once people were proud to work. Instead people want to do as little as possible.

The state already forks out a fortune for every child, to rightly ensure they have the best starts in life. The very fact that now when they turn adults. Some then further demand they should continue to have a free ride and expect others to then further pay for their education is inherently wrong. Its selfish and where in many cases the degrees obtained will have little bearing in the later employment roles they do. Or where they are specialized degrees and like with Doctors trained here. Many simple piss off abroad after they are qualified. To earn better wages and conditions. So not only are many taking the country for a ride over wanting the state to pay for this further education, but who is it really benefiting, other than the individual themselves?

If this is what labour is celebrating over? Then clearly there is many wrongs with how society is today. As people clearly only care for themselves. That people less and less care for their parents or relatives in old age and then again expect the state to care for them too. When we should all look after our elderly relatives or at least pay to have help. If people cannot afford, then they state should help, but where they can afford, people should pay. This is what is wrong today We are a society of takers, not for one second being appreciative of what the state does for us.

I mean surely this 11 billion bribe would be better spent on health and social care? The fact that many of our youth. Think that a free ride is more important. Than paying their own way and actually providing this money to where its actually needed, like the health service. Shows a reprehensible attitude of some of our youth today. Anyone unselfish, would want to pay for their own further education and even more so want this money set aside for those in need. To be provided to people who actually do need it. Like the homeless, the NHS and social care. That is why some of the youth who voted off this bribe for Labour. Are clearly utterly selfish.

Yet another rw biased party political broadcast by the Daily Mail.
Mosg of the British public have seen through the charade of media propaganda. 
One day , you will too Thor.

Angry Andy wrote:Yet another rw biased party political broadcast by the Daily Mail.
Mosg of the British public have seen through the charade of media propaganda. 
One day , you will too Thor.

Funny how you avoided every point I made and instead offer the worst apologist defense here. 

Try again Andy

The other reason as to why Corby did so well. He played off the selfish nature of our youth today. Who where in the past people were thankful for how the state looks after us. Have instead turned to one that demands everything on a plate and wants everything for free. This is the sad reality of the materialism age we now live in. There is little work ethic now, where once people were proud to work. Instead people want to do as little as possible.

The state already forks out a fortune for every child, to rightly ensure they have the best starts in life. The very fact that now when they turn adults. Some then further demand they should continue to have a free ride and expect others to then further pay for their education is inherently wrong. Its selfish and where in many cases the degrees obtained will have little bearing in the later employment roles they do. Or where they are specialized degrees and like with Doctors trained here. Many simple piss off abroad after they are qualified. To earn better wages and conditions. So not only are many taking the country for a ride over wanting the state to pay for this further education, but who is it really benefiting, other than the individual themselves?

If this is what labour is celebrating over? Then clearly there is many wrongs with how society is today. As people clearly only care for themselves. That people less and less care for their parents or relatives in old age and then again expect the state to care for them too. When we should all look after our elderly relatives or at least pay to have help. If people cannot afford, then they state should help, but where they can afford, people should pay. This is what is wrong today We are a society of takers, not for one second being appreciative of what the state does for us. 

I mean surely this 11 billion bribe would be better spent on health and social care? The fact that many of our youth. Think that a free ride is more important. Than paying their own way and actually providing this money to where its actually needed, like the health service. Shows a reprehensible attitude of some of our youth today. Anyone unselfish, would want to pay for their own further education and even more so want this money set aside for those in need. To be provided to people who actually do need it. Like the homeless, the NHS and social care. That is why some of the youth who voted off this bribe for Labour. Are clearly utterly selfish.

Angry Andy wrote:Yet another rw biased party political broadcast by the Daily Mail.
Mosg of the British public have seen through the charade of media propaganda. 
One day , you will too Thor.

I think the text underneath the link is Didge's own work Andy.

Didge, could you please put quotes in a quote box so that they're distinguished from your own words?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Yet another rw biased party political broadcast by the Daily Mail.
Mosg of the British public have seen through the charade of media propaganda. 
One day , you will too Thor.

I think the text underneath the link is Didge's own work Andy.

Didge, could you please put quotes in a quote box so that they're distinguished from your own words?

No problem Rags, I have edited the first post to show the difference

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think the text underneath the link is Didge's own work Andy.

Didge, could you please put quotes in a quote box so that they're distinguished from your own words?

No problem Rags, I have edited the first post to show the difference

That's much better - thank you.

The traditional view is that Tory voters are selfish and/or self-centred, and that Labour voters are selfless and generous. Are you saying it's the other way round?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

No problem Rags, I have edited the first post to show the difference

That's much better - thank you.

The traditional view is that Tory voters are selfish and/or self-centred, and that Labour voters are selfless and generous. Are you saying it's the other way round?

I think both are to be honest Rags. Just on this issue, clearly this was selfish by some of our youth today. As can be seen. That no matter whether left or right, I think people are very selfish today. Where once people were thankful, they demand everything today.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's much better - thank you.

The traditional view is that Tory voters are selfish and/or self-centred, and that Labour voters are selfless and generous. Are you saying it's the other way round?

I think both are to be honest Rags. Just on this issue, clearly this was selfish by some of our youth today. As can be seen. That no matter whether left or right, I think people are very selfish today. Where once people were thankful, they demand everything today.

I think it's a very interesting point of view actually. I went to university back in the stone age when it was free - other than one's parents making a contribution to the grant. If I'd had to take out a loan, I wonder if I would have gone or if I had got a job instead.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I think both are to be honest Rags. Just on this issue, clearly this was selfish by some of our youth today. As can be seen. That no matter whether left or right, I think people are very selfish today. Where once people were thankful, they demand everything today.

I think it's a very interesting point of view actually. I went to university back in the stone age when it was free - other than one's parents making a contribution to the grant. If I'd had to take out a loan, I wonder if I would have gone or if I had got a job instead.

That is a very interesting point Rags. I dont think my degrees have in anyway effected my job roles or benefited them. Do you think they have with yourself? I know I would have paid, as i did for my psychology degree. So its very interesting to see and ask as you have said if people would? Since students have been paying, I have not seen a decrease in applications. So clearly people want the experience and to have further education and pay to do so. I think the experience of University life plays a major factor to why people go onto further education. I mean today, there is so many made up degrees and that in reality they are never even used to obtain employment. I mean my History degree, has had no bearing on my employment.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it's a very interesting point of view actually. I went to university back in the stone age when it was free - other than one's parents making a contribution to the grant. If I'd had to take out a loan, I wonder if I would have gone or if I had got a job instead.

That is a very interesting point Rags. I dont think my degrees have in anyway effected my job roles or benefited them. Do you think they have with yourself? I know I would have paid, as i did for my psychology degree. So its very interesting to see and ask as you have said if people would? Since students have been paying, I have not seen a decrease in applications. So clearly people want the experience and to have further education and pay to do so. I think the experience of University life plays a major factor to why people go onto further education. I mean today, there is so many made up degrees and that in reality they are never even used to obtain employment. I mean my History degree, has had no bearing on my employment.

I don't think it has affected my employment in that most jobs I've had did not demand that I had a degree. I have often said on here that having a degree does not guarantee a job or career, despite the rather high expectations of university students.

I think it does depend on which degree you do, and whether it is necessary for a particular career or not - ie, is it a "Mickey Mouse degree" or not? I think some students go to university because they don't know what else to do, or because they want the experience, in which case should they get it for free?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


That is a very interesting point Rags. I dont think my degrees have in anyway effected my job roles or benefited them. Do you think they have with yourself? I know I would have paid, as i did for my psychology degree. So its very interesting to see and ask as you have said if people would? Since students have been paying, I have not seen a decrease in applications. So clearly people want the experience and to have further education and pay to do so. I think the experience of University life plays a major factor to why people go onto further education. I mean today, there is so many made up degrees and that in reality they are never even used to obtain employment. I mean my History degree, has had no bearing on my employment.

I don't think it has affected my employment in that most jobs I've had did not demand that I had a degree. I have often said on here that having a degree does not guarantee a job or career, despite the rather high expectations of university students.

I think it does depend on which degree you do, and whether it is necessary for a particular career or not - ie, is it a "Mickey Mouse degree" or not?  I think some students go to university because they don't know what else to do, or because they want the experience, in which case should they get it for free?

Love the way you describe some degrees, "Mickey Mouse"  

Which is my point. We see where people have skilled degrees, many simple just apply and work abroad to better pay. On top of that, where many degrees have little to no bearing on then when that person obtains employment. Shows to me, more than anything. That if students want further education. Then they should pay for this. As i say both Tories and Labour have countless selfish supporters, but Labour should feel embarrassed over this bribe. Showing again how they would waste money. When it could be better spent elsewhere.

I agree that some do not know what to do.

I think we are on the same page with this rags.  

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it has affected my employment in that most jobs I've had did not demand that I had a degree. I have often said on here that having a degree does not guarantee a job or career, despite the rather high expectations of university students.

I think it does depend on which degree you do, and whether it is necessary for a particular career or not - ie, is it a "Mickey Mouse degree" or not?  I think some students go to university because they don't know what else to do, or because they want the experience, in which case should they get it for free?

Love the way you describe some degrees, "Mickey Mouse"  

Which is my point. We see where people have skilled degrees, many simple just apply and work abroad to better pay. On top of that, where many degrees have little to no bearing on then when that person obtains employment. Shows to me, more than anything. That if students want further education. Then they should pay for this. As i say both Tories and Labour have countless selfish supporters, but Labour should feel embarrassed over this bribe. Showing again how they would waste money. When it could be better spent elsewhere.

I agree that some do not know what to do.

I think we are on the same page with this rags.  

Yes, we are probably on the same page this time. I have wondered if people should pay for "Mickey Mouse degrees" and not for more vocational degrees. However, as you say, they could get one of those for free and then go off abroad.

I'm not knocking degrees at all - I'm very pleased that I got one - and going to university is a great experience. However, I would advise anyone that a degree by itself does not guarantee anything, and is not going to benefit someone if they lack ambition or have the wrong attitude.

I suppose a lot more people go to university these days, so the cost would be huge if it was all free.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Love the way you describe some degrees, "Mickey Mouse"  

Which is my point. We see where people have skilled degrees, many simple just apply and work abroad to better pay. On top of that, where many degrees have little to no bearing on then when that person obtains employment. Shows to me, more than anything. That if students want further education. Then they should pay for this. As i say both Tories and Labour have countless selfish supporters, but Labour should feel embarrassed over this bribe. Showing again how they would waste money. When it could be better spent elsewhere.

I agree that some do not know what to do.

I think we are on the same page with this rags.  

Yes, we are probably on the same page this time.  I have wondered if people should pay for "Mickey Mouse degrees" and not for more vocational degrees. However, as you say, they could get one of those for free and then go off abroad.

I'm not knocking degrees at all - I'm very pleased that I got one - and going to university is a great experience. However, I would advise anyone that a degree by itself does not guarantee anything, and is not going to benefit someone if they lack ambition or have the wrong attitude.

I suppose a lot more people go to university these days, so the cost would be huge if it was all free.

I agree, that further education is great and many more should do so. As I back the continued learning for everyone on all subjects. I completely agree on the issue around where people think its a guarantee and wrongly think. They should have the job role based off that, over those without a degree. Everyone else has worked their way up, through hard work and skilled abilities. So again i agree it stifles the need to be ambitious. If some students hold this poor perception. that their degree should automatically make employers, then employ them. Only within specially skilled roles, would this be a requirement, in order to apply for that job.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Love the way you describe some degrees, "Mickey Mouse"  

Which is my point. We see where people have skilled degrees, many simple just apply and work abroad to better pay. On top of that, where many degrees have little to no bearing on then when that person obtains employment. Shows to me, more than anything. That if students want further education. Then they should pay for this. As i say both Tories and Labour have countless selfish supporters, but Labour should feel embarrassed over this bribe. Showing again how they would waste money. When it could be better spent elsewhere.

I agree that some do not know what to do.

I think we are on the same page with this rags.  

Yes, we are probably on the same page this time.  I have wondered if people should pay for "Mickey Mouse degrees" and not for more vocational degrees. However, as you say, they could get one of those for free and then go off abroad.

I'm not knocking degrees at all - I'm very pleased that I got one - and going to university is a great experience. However, I would advise anyone that a degree by itself does not guarantee anything, and is not going to benefit someone if they lack ambition or have the wrong attitude.

I suppose a lot more people go to university these days, so the cost would be huge if it was all free.

University student numbers are certainly well up in recent years, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But if my local university is anything to go, by a major problem is the number of drop-outs within a year of starting degree courses and the sheer waste of precious resources that inevitably accompanies it.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, we are probably on the same page this time.  I have wondered if people should pay for "Mickey Mouse degrees" and not for more vocational degrees. However, as you say, they could get one of those for free and then go off abroad.

I'm not knocking degrees at all - I'm very pleased that I got one - and going to university is a great experience. However, I would advise anyone that a degree by itself does not guarantee anything, and is not going to benefit someone if they lack ambition or have the wrong attitude.

I suppose a lot more people go to university these days, so the cost would be huge if it was all free.

University student numbers are certainly well up in recent years, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But if my local university is anything to go, by a major problem is the number of drop-outs within a year of starting degree courses and the sheer waste of precious resources that inevitably accompanies it.

Why do you think that is Fred? Are they disillusioned with the course or the university? Do they decide it's better to get a job? Did they just go because they couldn't think what else to do?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it's a very interesting point of view actually. I went to university back in the stone age when it was free - other than one's parents making a contribution to the grant. If I'd had to take out a loan, I wonder if I would have gone or if I had got a job instead.

That is a very interesting point Rags. I dont think my degrees have in anyway effected my job roles or benefited them. Do you think they have with yourself? I know I would have paid, as i did for my psychology degree. So its very interesting to see and ask as you have said if people would? Since students have been paying, I have not seen a decrease in applications. So clearly people want the experience and to have further education and pay to do so. I think the experience of University life plays a major factor to why people go onto further education. I mean today, there is so many made up degrees and that in reality they are never even used to obtain employment. I mean my History degree, has had no bearing on my employment.

I'm of the mind that all education should be free. That may not be practical financially, but that's what I believe. I think it's wrong that someone with no money can't obtain further education because they can't afford it. I also don't think that it's right that, for instance, one has to pay for a university degree to be a nurse. Years ago this wasn't necessary and the NHS didn't seem to suffer any more or less because of it. The whole system seems geared towards keeping the poor in shit jobs or/and keeping people in debt because of massive student loans. Everyone should have a fair crack of the whip. If you flunk it, or drop out, then you don't get a second chance, but at least give everyone that one chance.

As for degrees not helping with jobs...yes. You read over and over again about kids having degrees and still being unable to find work. But I guess it also depends on the type of work.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

University student numbers are certainly well up in recent years, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But if my local university is anything to go, by a major problem is the number of drop-outs within a year of starting degree courses and the sheer waste of precious resources that inevitably accompanies it.

Why do you think that is Fred? Are they disillusioned with the course or the university? Do they decide it's better to get a job? Did they just go because they couldn't think what else to do?

I think a lot of kids go to uni because it's expected of them. Fifty years ago, you went to college and then got a job if you didn't leave school at 15 or 16 and walk straight into work. Getting a job back then was a much easier process. Now, you have to jump through so many hoops, it fills you with despair before you've even begun. I really feel for youngsters these days in that respect.

I also think the lure of the loan is a bit of carrot. I know people who went to uni purely because they knew they'd get so many grand in a loan, then blew the loan and dropped out of the course. They're now still paying the loan back a decade later.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:


That is a very interesting point Rags. I dont think my degrees have in anyway effected my job roles or benefited them. Do you think they have with yourself? I know I would have paid, as i did for my psychology degree. So its very interesting to see and ask as you have said if people would? Since students have been paying, I have not seen a decrease in applications. So clearly people want the experience and to have further education and pay to do so. I think the experience of University life plays a major factor to why people go onto further education. I mean today, there is so many made up degrees and that in reality they are never even used to obtain employment. I mean my History degree, has had no bearing on my employment.

I'm of the mind that all education should be free.   That may not be practical financially, but that's what I believe.  I think it's wrong that someone with no money can't obtain further education because they can't afford it.   I also don't think that it's right that, for instance, one has to pay for a university degree to be a nurse.  Years ago this wasn't necessary and the NHS didn't seem to suffer any more or less because of it.   The whole system seems geared towards keeping the poor in shit jobs or/and keeping people in debt because of massive student loans.   Everyone should have a fair crack of the whip.  If you flunk it, or drop out, then you don't get a second chance, but at least give everyone that one chance.

As for degrees not helping with jobs...yes.   You read over and over again about kids having degrees and still being unable to find work.   But I guess it also depends on the type of work.    

So if education should be free. (It already is for kids, as it should be, these though are adults) Then how do you expect to pay for anyone that wants this further education Horatio? If you made it free, then all could then apply to have this. How are  you going to pay for this? 

Sorry but where in any part of the country, is a person denied further education on having no money?
That simple does not exist or happen. That means people pay their way to have further education as adults.

Nurses? Do not get me started. They get time and a half for sleeping throughout the night in hospitals. This is a fact. The porter team at my hospital show me where they fail on jobs, as they cost Serco money when they do. Many jobs fail around midnight, because many wards have nurses that call for beds to wards. So they can take turns sleeping the night. If that is not worse, they cannot do overtime and the hospital pays to send Nurses from London in taxis to Ashford and pays for their accommodation. Over that of giving nurses overtime.

The point is, are degrees beneficial?

The answer is only to those in skilled roles and what do they do? Leave the country for better pay.
So everyone should have a fair crack of the whip. So why do you want to advantage those who want further education, over those who work?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thorin wrote:


That is a very interesting point Rags. I dont think my degrees have in anyway effected my job roles or benefited them. Do you think they have with yourself? I know I would have paid, as i did for my psychology degree. So its very interesting to see and ask as you have said if people would? Since students have been paying, I have not seen a decrease in applications. So clearly people want the experience and to have further education and pay to do so. I think the experience of University life plays a major factor to why people go onto further education. I mean today, there is so many made up degrees and that in reality they are never even used to obtain employment. I mean my History degree, has had no bearing on my employment.

I'm of the mind that all education should be free.   That may not be practical financially, but that's what I believe.  I think it's wrong that someone with no money can't obtain further education because they can't afford it.   I also don't think that it's right that, for instance, one has to pay for a university degree to be a nurse.  Years ago this wasn't necessary and the NHS didn't seem to suffer any more or less because of it.   The whole system seems geared towards keeping the poor in shit jobs or/and keeping people in debt because of massive student loans.   Everyone should have a fair crack of the whip.  If you flunk it, or drop out, then you don't get a second chance, but at least give everyone that one chance.

As for degrees not helping with jobs...yes.   You read over and over again about kids having degrees and still being unable to find work.   But I guess it also depends on the type of work.    

It's not necessarily the case that people with degrees can't find jobs - they probably can, but it's not a job which requires a degree. Some people have high expectations just because they have a degree, and they need to be more realistic.

I don't think anyone needs a degree to be a nurse. Training should be more practical.

People with no money can go to university. They get a loan which they pay back later when they earn a certain amount of money, so I don't think it's true to say that poor people can't go to university.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why do you think that is Fred? Are they disillusioned with the course or the university? Do they decide it's better to get a job? Did they just go because they couldn't think what else to do?

I think a lot of kids go to uni because it's expected of them.   Fifty years ago, you went to college and then got a job if you didn't leave school at 15 or 16 and walk straight into work.   Getting a job back then was a much easier process.   Now, you have to jump through so many hoops, it fills you with despair before you've even begun.  I really feel for youngsters these days in that respect.

I also think the lure of the loan is a bit of carrot.   I know people who went to uni purely because they knew they'd get so many grand in a loan, then blew the loan and dropped out of the course.   They're now still paying the loan back a decade later.

Perhaps the prospect of getting a loan and having to pay it back might make young people more responsible then. In the days when it was free, one didn't really think about where the money came from really - it's only later on that you think about it.

Meanwhile the Tories buy the rich and powerful with tax cuts for the wealthiest...

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I think a lot of kids go to uni because it's expected of them.   Fifty years ago, you went to college and then got a job if you didn't leave school at 15 or 16 and walk straight into work.   Getting a job back then was a much easier process.   Now, you have to jump through so many hoops, it fills you with despair before you've even begun.  I really feel for youngsters these days in that respect.

I also think the lure of the loan is a bit of carrot.   I know people who went to uni purely because they knew they'd get so many grand in a loan, then blew the loan and dropped out of the course.   They're now still paying the loan back a decade later.

Perhaps the prospect of getting a loan and having to pay it back might make young people more responsible then. In the days when it was free, one didn't really think about where the money came from really - it's only later on that you think about it.

Spot on, have a thanks

Fair play to horatio, she is not afraid to express her views on this.

The other lefties have retreated on answering this  

Eilzel wrote:Meanwhile the Tories buy the rich and powerful with tax cuts for the wealthiest...

Very wrong also, so why do you use a deflection on a wrong, in order to get out of condemning another wrong mate?    

You suffer also from ostrich parasitic syndrome.

any degree in the fields of science (and I mean REAL science...) engineering, medical should be free

NO degree in some fannyanny "art" (have you seen what passes for art these days) or "media studies" or any computer study that is not essentially mechanical, scientific (which would include programming obviously)
ie these package "degrees issued by microsoft etc) and of course worst of all hairderssing

should be free

anything "inbetween should be partially funded to the extent it is actually scientific

so didge...you history degree would be piad for, since that to me is as much science as anything else

your psychology degree however would not...since thats a religion/black art/ cauldron boiler

Lord Foul wrote:any degree in the fields of science (and I mean REAL science...) engineering, medical should be free

NO degree in some fannyanny "art" (have you seen what passes for art these days) or "media studies" or any computer study that is not essentially mechanical, scientific (which would include programming obviously)
ie these package "degrees issued by microsoft etc) and of course worst of all hairderssing

should be free

anything "inbetween should be partially funded to the extent it is actually scientific

so didge...you history degree would be piad for, since that to me is as much science as anything else

your psychology degree however would not...since thats a religion/black art/ cauldron boiler

How do you decide which degrees are useful though?

useful to who...?

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Meanwhile the Tories buy the rich and powerful with tax cuts for the wealthiest...

Very wrong also, so why do you use a deflection on a wrong, in order to get out of condemning another wrong mate?    

You suffer also from ostrich parasitic syndrome.

I explained yesterday why I think tuition should be free and so do not see this as a 'bribe'. The lowest corporation tax of a big western economy though- that is ridiculous.

Lord Foul wrote:any degree in the fields of science (and I mean REAL science...) engineering, medical should be free

NO degree in some fannyanny "art" (have you seen what passes for art these days) or "media studies" or any computer study that is not essentially mechanical, scientific (which would include programming obviously)
ie these package "degrees issued by microsoft etc) and of course worst of all hairderssing

should be free

anything "inbetween should be partially funded to the extent it is actually scientific

so didge...you history degree would be piad for, since that to me is as much science as anything else

your psychology degree however would not...since thats a religion/black art/ cauldron boiler

Failed logic

I agree all should pay for their degrees and you want to pay for the education of a surgeon who then pisses off and lives abroad

What is the value in that buddy?

I paid for my second degree but you want to have specialized degrees paid for when people fuck off after qualifying

Wow, dont you loolk the muppet

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Very wrong also, so why do you use a deflection on a wrong, in order to get out of condemning another wrong mate?    

You suffer also from ostrich parasitic syndrome.

I explained yesterday why I think tuition should be free and so do not see this as a 'bribe'. The lowest corporation tax of a big western economy though- that is ridiculous.

That is because you are really unable to argue your position

So are you telling me 11 billion would be best placed to pay for many people who party 3 years and obtain qualifications. That do little to further their employment? Over that of using this on the homeless?

In your own time mate

Lord Foul wrote:useful to who...?

Exactly. How do you decide that one degree is useful and another isn't?

Still waiting for those on the left to justify 11 billion for selfish brats over the homeless?

And here is our lovely toddler tantrum youth, who want to eradicate democracy




Protesters outside Downing Street CREDIT: GETTY

Selfish buggers !

"£11billion tuition fee bribe" ?

Why use such a silly perjorative word in the title,  as if a crime of some sort is involved? The contents of a manifesto are not a 'bribe'.

It's the job of a party leader to propose ideas which he/she thinks will help people and appeal to them. If you fancy the ideas you vote for the person, ... if you don't fancy them, you don't give the person your vote. That's how the democratic system works. No coercion or crime or bribery is involved.


What about all the times when the conservatives offered tax credits, cuts in corporation tax and  inheritance tax and 101 other sweeteners to get votes. .... did you make outraged threads accusing them of bribery too, or is that biased word reserved only for parties you dislike?

If you're looking for reasons why the tories blundered so badly .... then  instead of blaming Corbyn,  blame the aloof way Theresa May repeatedly dodged debates, took her core supporters for granted and tried to shaft them too, and her many confusing U-turns.

Jules wrote:"£11billion tuition fee bribe" ?

Why use such a silly perjorative word in the title,  as if a crime of some sort is involved? The contents of a manifesto are not a 'bribe'.

Yes it is a crime when  this money can be used on the homeless.

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:"£11billion tuition fee bribe" ?

Why use such a silly perjorative word in the title,  as if a crime of some sort is involved? The contents of a manifesto are not a 'bribe'.

Yes it is a crime when  this money can be used on the homeless.

We could scrap Trident, or not cut corporation tax. The former is arguably a useless deterrent against modern threats (a deterrent Germany and Japan manage to live without), the former makes the UK a tax haven compared with other big economic powers. That money could then be used for the homeless. At least spending it on university tuition gives us a better educated populace.

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:
Yes it is a crime when  this money can be used on the homeless.

We could scrap Trident, or not cut corporation tax. The former is arguably a useless deterrent against modern threats (a deterrent Germany and Japan manage to live without), the former makes the UK a tax haven compared with other big economic powers. That money could then be used for the homeless. At least spending it on university tuition gives us a better educated populace.

Failed argument and thus admitting this 11 billion is wasted on our youth

So you admit that 11 billion is a waste on students?

Yes or no?

We already have nukes.

No.

Eilzel wrote:No.

Wow, so you place paying for those selfish, when they can pay for themselves over that of the homeless.

Do you seriously think money grows on trees?


And this is what is wrong with society today, that people think they should get everything for free and not earn it

It goes back to my original points



The other reason as to why Corby did so well. He played off the selfish nature of our youth today. Who where in the past people were thankful for how the state looks after us. Have instead turned to one that demands everything on a plate and wants everything for free. This is the sad reality of the materialism age we now live in. There is little work ethic now, where once people were proud to work. Instead people want to do as little as possible.

The state already forks out a fortune for every child, to rightly ensure they have the best starts in life. The very fact that now when they turn adults. Some then further demand they should continue to have a free ride and expect others to then further pay for their education is inherently wrong. Its selfish and where in many cases the degrees obtained will have little bearing in the later employment roles they do. Or where they are specialized degrees and like with Doctors trained here. Many simple piss off abroad after they are qualified. To earn better wages and conditions. So not only are many taking the country for a ride over wanting the state to pay for this further education, but who is it really benefiting, other than the individual themselves?

If this is what labour is celebrating over? Then clearly there is many wrongs with how society is today. As people clearly only care for themselves. That people less and less care for their parents or relatives in old age and then again expect the state to care for them too. When we should all look after our elderly relatives or at least pay to have help. If people cannot afford, then they state should help, but where they can afford, people should pay. This is what is wrong today We are a society of takers, not for one second being appreciative of what the state does for us. 

I mean surely this 11 billion bribe would be better spent on health and social care? The fact that many of our youth. Think that a free ride is more important. Than paying their own way and actually providing this money to where its actually needed, like the health service. Shows a reprehensible attitude of some of our youth today. Anyone unselfish, would want to pay for their own further education and even more so want this money set aside for those in need. To be provided to people who actually do need it. Like the homeless, the NHS and social care. That is why some of the youth who voted off this bribe for Labour. Are clearly utterly selfish.

Thorin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:any degree in the fields of science (and I mean REAL science...) engineering, medical should be free

NO degree in some fannyanny "art" (have you seen what passes for art these days) or "media studies" or any computer study that is not essentially mechanical, scientific (which would include programming obviously)
ie these package "degrees issued by microsoft etc) and of course worst of all hairderssing

should be free

anything "inbetween should be partially funded to the extent it is actually scientific

so didge...you history degree would be piad for, since that to me is as much science as anything else

your psychology degree however would not...since thats a religion/black art/ cauldron boiler

Failed logic

I agree  all should pay for their degrees and you want to pay for the education  of a surgeon who then pisses off and lives abroad

What is the value in that buddy?

I paid for my second degree but you want to have specialized degrees paid for when people fuck off after qualifying

Wow, dont you loolk the muppet  

And what great use you have made of your 'career'.
1 post on a small American forum, every 20 minutes, every hour, 16 hours per day, 7 days per week. 
I can think of better ways of spending my time.

Angry Andy wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Failed logic

I agree  all should pay for their degrees and you want to pay for the education  of a surgeon who then pisses off and lives abroad

What is the value in that buddy?

I paid for my second degree but you want to have specialized degrees paid for when people fuck off after qualifying

Wow, dont you loolk the muppet  

And what great use you have made of your 'career'.
1 post on a small American forum, every 20 minutes, every hour, 16 hours per day, 7 days per week. 
I can think of better ways of spending my time.

So where you could not answer my points, you fall back on the regressive tactic of arguing against the poster and not their points.

I can think of better human beings than you?

Does that win my argument, based on your reasoning here?

DODGE  would rather give his corporate and millionaire masters a 50% cut in the business tax rates...

Rather than financing the education of your future nurses, doctors, scientists, engineers, agriculturists and any other essential  professionals;  and what about the technical/trade and practical workers from your technical colleges..

And not forgetting ongoing cuts to ambo's, firies and police.
All to finance corporate tax breaks..          

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

DODGE  would rather give his corporate and millionaire masters a 50% cut in the business tax rates...

Rather than financing the education of nurses, doctors, scientists, engineers, agriculturists and any other essential  professionals;  and what about the technical/trade and practical workers from your technical colleges..

And not forgetting ongoing cuts to ambo's, firies and police.

All to finance corporate tax breaks..          

1) Show me anywhere I made any such claim?

2) Second show me how in any possible situation, you believe 11 billion should be used to give free education to adults (when they already had free education as children) over the homeless

3) Come on you boringly inane pathetic excuse for a human being. Lets see your answers you complete and utter twat

Didge lost any right to complain about politics after he declined to vote.
He also lost his arguement, which he HAS to have every thread, WHEN HE RESORTED TO PERSONAL ABUSE.
His degree in International Politics and negotiation diplomacy hasn't  been of much use.

Angry Andy wrote:Didge lost any right to complain about politics after he declined to vote.
He also lost his arguement, which he HAS to have every thread, WHEN HE RESORTED TO PERSONAL ABUSE.
His degree in International Politics and negotiation diplomacy hasn't  been of much use.

1) Show me anywhere in regards to complaining about the election?

Come on Andy, show me

2) I am complaining about Labour policies and Labour lost the election

3) Your inability to debate points and instead invent lies about posters is why most people see you as a simpleton

This is supposed to be about tuition fees!

I think there's a case on either side. Many people got a degree without having to pay, myself included, so it seems a bit unfair to say that others shouldn't. However, I do think that many more people are going to university now - I'm not sure of the figures - so it would cost an awful lot more. In addition to that, I've said that having a degree does not guarantee that anyone gets a high-paying job, and therefore pays back more in tax. Vocational degrees are a bit different IMO - they are more likely to lead to a specific job where pay is higher, but how does one decide which are the "useful" degrees?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

University student numbers are certainly well up in recent years, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But if my local university is anything to go, by a major problem is the number of drop-outs within a year of starting degree courses and the sheer waste of precious resources that inevitably accompanies it.

Why do you think that is Fred? Are they disillusioned with the course or the university? Do they decide it's better to get a job? Did they just go because they couldn't think what else to do?

I don't really know, Raggs; many possible reasons I suppose such as uni life turning out not to be what they expected or wanted, a death in the family that meant they had to leave and get a job, a good job offer appearing out of the blue...who knows? But it was certainly a big problem.

The media studies and journalism degree course was particularly badly hit by terminations on the part of the student. During the three or four years that I was a visiting tutor the stark realisation that they were not going to land a job as a Guardian leader writer, TV producer, national radio talk show host or top news or society photographer the week after graduating without years of bloody hard work, vicious competition and a remarkable paucity of such high-flying jobs very quickly struck home.

And some of them, frankly, entered the course with an English or English Literature A level and yet were almost incapable of understanding the correct use of the apostrophe, let alone being unable to string a sentence together properly.

We have two Villiage idiots on here, one, Andy, two, Wolfie.
And Veya coming up on the inside could make it three !!

nicko wrote:We have two Villiage idiots on here, one,  Andy,  two,  Wolfie.
And Veya coming up on the inside could make it three  !!

Maybe they are local authority village idiots...three people employed full time to do the job that used to be done by one part time.