Who are you going to vote for?

[Guest morpheus2702]

Taxes... now there is a good one.

I'm neither a massive earner nor working the grill order at Burger King. But it really p****s me off every month when I see how much of my wage is left after tax and NI contributions.

It fills me with dread that if I were to earn more money, were the higher tax bracket increased further, I'd end up giving more away of my wages than I'd take home myself. Where is the incentive and reward to actually get on and make something of yourself?

I don't have any equitable solution, but think that we pay enough non-direct taxes (VAT, petrol, council tax) that are funding the improvements in services.

The UK hasn't changed its politics since the 1800s: the working classes don't want a revolution, they just want more money.

[Guest TigerNet]

...I think I'm going to avoid this topic...but I have to say that intelligence tests in order to vote would be a slippery slope...not elitist at all really...

Cheers

Nick

[Guest morpheus2702]

Democracy = mob rule.

Nothing wrong with having a 'fatherly dictatorship'! ;)

[Guest Dr Who]

Yeah Dr Bow, I was kinda joking. But if you can't find somebody who properly represents your views and that is why you aren't voting then one should consider doing something about it. Otherwise you are not voting because you are apathetic - its that simple.

I have real sympathy with you Dr Blow, for going through University at the moment. At least I got, an albeit small, grant and my fees paid. My missus went on to do a Masters with no financial support from the government, which is ridiculous. BTW, she borrowed money from the Careers Development Service which is run by a cartel of ONE - Barclays - who charged 16% interest!!!!! This was meant to be repayed over 5 years but because the interest was so punitive we couldn't pay at first. This means that at the end of the five year period she still owes pretty much what she borrowed. We apparently live in a knowledge economy but the government isn't prepared to finacially support those who are trying to gain qualifications. This is especially annoying since in many fields you now need a Masters to distinguish yourselves from the legions of graduates we now have. We DO NOT need 50% of our children in higher education, 1 million Media Studies and History of Arts students is really not necessary. What we need is people with skills where they are required and with higher education where that is required.

Talking of apathy, after the last election I meant to start a, "Spoil Your Vote" party. A party with no policies whatsoever other than to get the non-voters out and rather than spoiling the paper to make the protest they could vote for the Spoil Your Voters. That way your 'Np vote' would be counted and peoples disgust/apathy with the current political parties would be noted. Needless to say I haven't done. Anyone up for joining if I get together next time?

Morpheus, I agree with your comment about indirect taxation (although VAT - but not on essentials like food, medicine, childrens clothing, a local income tax and some sort of 'green tax' would be required). Wouldn't you rather pay more out of your wage packet but less in every other area of life. Yeah you may only end up with £1K a month but if that was all yours.........?

Agreed Disco Stu, the real problem is tax avoidance. Like inheritance tax. That now only hits those that have worked all their lives to buy and maintain a family home. The truly rich, which the tax was designed for, can afford accountants and lawyers to hide their assets in trusts. Tax avoidance, particularly by corporations and MP's (stand up Geoffery Robinson!) makes me really mad. And hence the taxation burden falls disproportionately on the poor.

[Guest AngelOfRage]

I think the Tax system needs looking at. As well as evything thats comes off it. doe the liberal democrats realise that it isn't good for the country in the long to run to have everyone going to univeristy, they would be better off putting forward ideas of Apprenticeship in subjects that would lead to direct jobs. dont get me wrong university has a place in society, for exampl one of my friends did a 4 year degree in optometry (sp?) and now is an optician and paying taxes, but the other 6 of my friends who went to uni have no usefull qualifications what so ever, basically if the goverment is to pay for people to go to uni it needs to make sure that it will get something back, other than a country full of Pyschology and Socialology post grads, with no knowledge of the real world of work as they saw Uni as a way to piss around for 3 years. my point is why should we be paying to put people like this through university?

sorry for the rant, but i didn't go to uni and apart from my optician mate i earn alot more (thus paying more tax) and have better qualifications than the rest of the people i know who went to uni and i did a modern apprenticship 4 years ago.

[Guest Dr Who]

I would agree in most respects, although I think it was Labour that used the 50% figure. University was traditionally for the most academically gifted - hence the elitism badge - and had to be democratised. And I don't think that every course or every student has to on an applied subject. Society needs its dillitantes! However I know from experience that a large percentage of that 50% are not academically gifted enough to gain from going to university. Surfing is not a degree course (although it is at Bangor university) and, no offense intended, going to the Thames Valley University for an academic course is not going to get you very far. University should be reserved for the true intellectuals, which could then be subsidised by the governement due to the much lower numbers involved. A lot of universities would end up closing, which is where the problem lies. For 30 years now universities have been increasingly forced to run as businesses and IMHO this isn't good for the univeersities of for our knowledge society.

[Guest morpheus2702]

Anyone undertaking courses in Peace Studies, Modern Tap or Media Studies should just be executed, plain and simple. No discussion, no right of appeal, as soon as they tick that box on the UCCA form (or whatever it is now) for any of the above and that's it, there's a knock on their door in the middle of the night...

[Guest drblow]

I would agree in most respects, although I think it was Labour that used the 50% figure. University was traditionally for the most academically gifted - hence the elitism badge - and had to be democratised. And I don't think that every course or every student has to on an applied subject. Society needs its dillitantes! However I know from experience that a large percentage of that 50% are not academically gifted enough to gain from going to university. Surfing is not a degree course (although it is at Bangor university) and, no offense intended, going to the Thames Valley University for an academic course is not going to get you very far. University should be reserved for the true intellectuals, which could then be subsidised by the governement due to the much lower numbers involved. A lot of universities would end up closing, which is where the problem lies. For 30 years now universities have been increasingly forced to run as businesses and IMHO this isn't good for the univeersities of for our knowledge society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm ... while some of that is true, I think it's very dodgy to start marginalising education. That could be in severe danger as coming across just a bit too socialist for me! ;) It would seem that approach would require a great degree of pigeon-holing children at a young age, so they could be classified as 'intellectual'. Which would inevitably lead to a whole other bunch of kids being labelled 'non-intellectual', or as you & I know it ... working class! :twisted:

It would seem to me that the more universities are opened up the better. If even a few kids can get into education instead of hanging around an estate til they can leave school, then signing on the dole, then surely thats a good thing. Education, especially higher education, menas alot more than just getting a qualification in a subject. It's about learning to use your mind, to think, to learn new things, ho9w to present coherent arguments ... yeah, sure! :twisted: OK, so it's about drinking, but you know what I mean! :P

And anyway - I totally disagree with this ...

But if you can't find somebody who properly represents your views and that is why you aren't voting then one should consider doing something about it. Otherwise you are not voting because you are apathetic - its that simple

Are you honestly suggesting that if I don't like any of the candidates in the general election, that I should set up my own party & try to beat them all, or else I'm apathetic ... it's that simple!!?? :shock: I mean, OK I'm good, but I'm not that good! ;)

Come on, it's not apathetic to take a political decision to NOT vote. Apathy is not caring. I DO care, in fact it's because I care that I'm NOT voting! I'm having much more fun pontificating on this forum about politics than actually taking part in it! ;) And, yes, I did just say that before someone else did.

So, if it's 'that simple' then please outline exactly what effective measures you suggest I take, in light of the fact that none of the candidates reflects my views?

[Guest AngelOfRage]

It would seem to me that the more universities are opened up the better. If even a few kids can get into education instead of hanging around an estate til they can leave school, then signing on the dole, then surely thats a good thing. Education, especially higher education, menas alot more than just getting a qualification in a subject. It's about learning to use your mind, to think, to learn new things, how to present coherent arguments ... yeah, sure! icon_twisted.gif OK, so it's about drinking, but you know what I mean! icon_biggrin.gif

but dont you agree that vocational courses would be a better idea, rather than putting everyone through uni just to keep them off the streets, wouldn't that just devalue university degrees even more?

I agree that universities are needed but i dont think a goverment can justify spending tax payers money on supporting every teenager that wants to avoid doing anything for 3 years after finishing collage.

If i ran my own company i wouldn't employ someone because they wasted 3 years getting a 2nd class degree from a medicore university, then to come out and expect that somebody gives them a high payed job, just because they have a degree.

Ill say it again, the goverment should be promoting vocational qualifications and apprenticships instead of offering to pay for everybody to go to uni.

I honestly think that the Lib Dems are just using this Uni point as a way of grabbing extra votes, with no long term thought into it what so ever.

[Guest drblow]

Em ... I'm sorry, but what planet are we talking about here? It's called a student loan for a reason, it has to be repaid. And right now there are thousands of people with degrees working to pay them back at excruciatingly high rates sometimes. So your comments about the government paying for people to go to university are ill-informed. Do people on vocational courses not get fees paid by local authorities, or education boards? You seem to segregate education into very black & white terms of 'academic' and 'vocational'. I mean, lots of vocational training is done at colleges that recieve governemnt funding, lots of students at them get government funding to pay fees etc, so do you also think that's a waste of time/money?

I completely agree that vocational training should be promoted to the full, but not at the expense of anything else. I mean, what is the difference between someone who leaves college with a diploma in plumbing, and someone who leaves university with a degree in marketing? They have both studied their chosen profession in an educational establishment, passed the exams to prove they have retained enough information to perform certain tasks adequately, and then use those qualifications to secure gainful employment. It's all just training at the end of the day.

The old stereotype of university students all being posh & rich and drinking all day is long gone. I'm a mature student. I'm sure you'll be horrified to learn that I'm doing a degree in music, and entirely useless waste of time, I'm sure you'll agree! ;) When I go to uni, I'm as likely to see kids with trackies & burberry caps on as I am to see kids with wellies & tweed suits on ... see, stereotypes again! ;)

The reason I went to university was really coz I have pretty much wasted my life so far playing in bands & stuff :P , and then I realised I was getting too old for that s**t, and needed a proper job! ;) I was 30 when I applied, and knew I was too old to pay attention to a subject that did not interest me, and obviously I had plenty of experience as a musician, so I chose to study music - no brainer :shock: . & I like it! :D

Just to really sicken you, I work occasionally as a volunteer with a group who do music workshops for kids with learning disabilities (autism mostly), and disadvantaged kids from local estates. I hope to go on to work with them once I am qualified. :D No... really! :D The job requires a degree, and if I get it I'll have to do a further four years on-the-job vocational training in care work! :shock: Lots of job require a degree. You wouldn't want your appendix being removed by somone with 'vocational' training, would you? :D

Right, that's it. I'm off to set up my own political party ... I'm calling it the 'don't vote for me I know nothing' party!

EDIT: sorry about all those smilies there, just getting a bit carried away obviously.

Edited April 27, 2005 by drblow

[Guest Dr Who]

Oooooh, lots to get me teeth into here.

Firstly: Yes Dr Blow, that is exactly what I am suggesting. If there is not a single candidate in your constituency that you feel you could support then you should consider getting out on the hustings and giving other people who share your views a candidate they can believe in. Either that or vote for the existing best alternative. Or at the very least go and spoil your paper (I am quite fond of a large smiley!).

As for the higher education thing. I am not suggesting that 50% of the population shouldn't receive higher education - just that a traditional university course is not necessarily the best place for it. I would be quite happy for people to study for a BSc or BA in plumbing, welding, anything in fact. What I don't see any value in is 45% of the population going to university to do low rent academic subjects because all the traditioanl subjects are too boring. We now have a glut of graduates who have few skills applicable to most jobs, who have put themselves into massive amounts of debt but have no better job prospects or wage prospects than before the course and it means those who would have traditionally gone to university (the top, say, 10%) now need to study for higher degrees to differentiate themselves from those who would have been better off taking alternative choices at 18. This situation doesn't help the students, who are left with crippling debt and a degree that doesn't help them, it doesn't help the universities who's funding is now so thinly spread that traditional academic subjects are being forced to close because they are loss making (5 chemistry departments have closed in the last 2 years), it doesn't help society and it doesn't help business. So what is the point. GCSE's and A-Levels should be made more rigorous with an emphasis back on exams and not coursework to lower the amount of work that needs to be completed (particularly A-levels).

I am however very in favour in people getting into higher education as 'mature' students. In my experience they have a far better attitude and work ethic than your traditional straight from school mob and achieve better results.

[Guest drblow]

To be fair, what you are saying is true to some extent. But I just feel that it's a bit sweeping & general to say that universities are not the best place for certain types of education. They are just big colleges, you know. In order to get into uni, I had to do a HNC in a college before applying. While looking into courses, I looked at a car mechanics HND (2 years), which actually would have been better funded for me as the LEA would have given me a grant to reduce the amount of student loan I needed - so the vocational qualifications clearly come in for more govt. funding than uni places. There is also a car mechanics HND available at my university, just without the extra funding. So, the modern university has obviously branched out into larger fields of study than people think.

Sure, there are people who come to uni & leave with a standard degree, and not much more hope of getting a job than when they went in. But surely that says as much about the state of employment in the country, as it does about education? I mean, the point is that nobody can expect all people to simply fall into a category, because it may increase their chance of employment. There will always be academic subjects, and there will awlays be people who want to study things which may not necessarily lead straight to a job, but that doesn't mean that they should be denied access to learning. A degree in history may not be any good for anything except becoming a history teacher, but if someone wants to study that, then they shoudl be free to do so. Especially now-a-days, when the student loan system means that you are paying for your own education. University departments are funded less now than they ever have been before. The government is not paying out any more in funding to students than it ever did, and infact now money is coming into the system from repayments of student loans. 10 years ago under a troy government, none of that money was available. But none of those funding issues is anything to do with the number of students applying (infact in my university, attendance figures are at the lowest in 25 years). Thinly spread funds are down to lack of money coming from government sources, budgets being cut every year etc etc. But again, that is not a reflection on the students, or the number of courses available. Universities don't just start offering a load of courses and then discover they don't have enough money to run them. They have to apply for funding to set up a new course. The funding is just so little that it becomes difficult. But ultimately the university will be responding to governemt objectives, and local demand for places. The fact that universities are poorly funded should not be a criticism of the institution, or the students, but of the badly run education system.

Your comment about mature students is quite revealing! :shock: So, the inference is that non-mature students are more inclined to have a poor work ethic, and achieve worse results?? So, exactly what are discussing here? Is it that the poorly funded education system is failing young people with a desire to learn, or is it that these young lay-abouts are just wasting 3 years doing nothing at the expense of the taxpayer?

At the music workshops group thing I mentioned, a couple of years ago a guy appeared, aged about 16, from a rough-as-hell local estate. He'd been sent along by his social worker, because the cops were just about fed up with him, and he was on the verge of being sent to a young offenders institute. This was seen to be his last hope. He got involved with the group really well. He learned guitar, and within 6 months he was teaching other younger kids at the group. He has now just been accepted into university to study social work (another job that requires a degree). He, and his family, are so proud you would not beleive it. This kid has turned his life around, and going to uni is a big deal to him. Now, if you saw him on the street you'd probably cross the road in case he tried to nick your C500 ;), but you can be sure he will pass the degree and go on to do well.

OK, thats an isolated case. But to me, even one case like that justifies everything about opening uni up to more & more people.

Oh, and just about the starting your own party thing ... it's just silly really isn't it!? It's something that I hear quite alot these days (I'm sure you can imagine), but not one person has actually suggested anything tangible or productive that a non-voter can do.

Set up your own political party otherwise you shall be deemed apathetic - yeah, right. It's just not realistic, and as such cannot really be considered an 'alternative'. If everyone who disagreed with the parties at the minute set up their own party, the election would become a farce with hundreds of choices, and ballot papers that ran into chapters! You can be damn sure that the government certainly don't want people doing that, and I don't imagine the electorate would either. So, even if I did do that, it's not really doing something.

After doing a bit of reading on spoil ballot papers, I might just consider doing that. I found this quote in an article "Support for spoiling comes from the Electoral Commission - their recent report concludes that low turnout is a sign of DISCONTENT not APATHY. Check the Guardian coverage ..." Now those are the first sensible words I have heard in the whole issue of voting/not voting.

Claiming that non-voting is a result of apathy is a cop-out. It is very much discontent for me personally.

Anyone else wondering about spoiling ballot papers could do worse than to have a look here http://www.spoilyourvote.co.uk/index.php

[Guest Dr Who]

"Your comment about mature students is quite revealing! So, the inference is that non-mature students are more inclined to have a poor work ethic, and achieve worse results?? So, exactly what are discussing here? Is it that the poorly funded education system is failing young people with a desire to learn, or is it that these young lay-abouts are just wasting 3 years doing nothing at the expense of the taxpayer?"

Well I know from personal experience, and also a lot of second hand experience, that when you go to university straight from school you don't have a clue what you actually want to do with your life. So a good proportion of people are doing degree courses that they soon realise they have little or no interest in. On the other hand mature students know what they want to do and tend to be making a bigger sacrifice to get there. Hence they tend to be more motivated to get something out of their investment of time and money. I think the failure of the education system is rail-roading children into making choices about their education when they are 14. At 14 I was advised I should choose my O-Levels based on what I wanted to study at university - this at an age when I had no idea what a university was. So I chose a certain set of subjects. Again at 16 I was advised to choose these particular A-Levels so that I could get into a university to study what I wanted to do. And then all of a sudden you are choosing a degree and a university with no idea what is actually involved. The truth is at 14 you have no concept of what a job actually is, what is involved or how soul destroying it is to be doing a job you hate (or a degree for that matter).

"A degree in history may not be any good for anything except becoming a history teacher, but if someone wants to study that, then they shoudl be free to do so."

I totally agree with you but is it really worth somebody who gets a 'D' grade at A-Level spending 3 years studying history to get a 3rd Class degree, no matter how interested they are in the subject? I accept that the university experience is worth trying - I have never had such a fun, or easy, time in my life - but in a lot of cases I don't see the value to the individual or to society.

"Thinly spread funds are down to lack of money coming from government sources, budgets being cut every year etc etc. But again, that is not a reflection on the students, or the number of courses available. Universities don't just start offering a load of courses and then discover they don't have enough money to run them."

Universities get given a certain amount of money per student depending on the course and the current UAE assesment of the department that the course is tought in. The fact is 18 year olds will often choose the subject that is easiest to them rather than the one that is most challenging/interesting/likely to give them a job. Hence Media Studies courses are oversubscribed all over the country and Maths, Chemistry and Physics courses have continually falling student numbers. At a certain point (often after a downgrading in the UAE) the course no longer maintains profitability. Certainly in the sciences clearing is used to artificially bump up the number of students to provide more funds. This means SOME students are taken, not on their academic ability or chance to succeed but because they represent badly needed revenue.

"Oh, and just about the starting your own party thing ... it's just silly really isn't it!? It's something that I hear quite alot these days (I'm sure you can imagine), but not one person has actually suggested anything tangible or productive that a non-voter can do.

Set up your own political party otherwise you shall be deemed apathetic - yeah, right. It's just not realistic, and as such cannot really be considered an 'alternative'. If everyone who disagreed with the parties at the minute set up their own party, the election would become a farce with hundreds of choices, and ballot papers that ran into chapters! You can be damn sure that the government certainly don't want people doing that, and I don't imagine the electorate would either. So, even if I did do that, it's not really doing something."

Well, I don't agree with any particular party either but I appreciate that unless I am willing to change the selection ahead of me then I should vote for the one I agree with most. It is from little acorns that great oak trees grow - if people had taken the attitude, "What changes can I really make" back in 1900 we wouldn't have the Labour Party. Some might say that is a good thing!

However we are digressing - education is not the only issue in the elections. In some ways I am suprised you were considering not voting - you obviously have your own strong opinion on the subject. If you want to make a difference you should at least visit a polling booth. Whatever you do there is obviously your own affair.

[Guest squall]

being lazy i havent read all this thread, but does anyone else think its just silly that its projected that in the not to distant future 50% of school leavers will go to uni?

No way is there enough skilled jobs to justify that huge number. I would rather see 25% going to uni and 25% doing apprentiships or similar.

Ive seen it from both points of view, being an apprentice who went onto uni.

[Guest drblow]

However we are digressing - education is not the only issue in the elections. In some ways I am suprised you were considering not voting - you obviously have your own strong opinion on the subject. If you want to make a difference you should at least visit a polling booth. Whatever you do there is obviously your own affair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now that is something I have to say that I have taken from this most enjoyable debate! I will be going to a polling station this time. I had no idea previously that spoilt ballot papers actually counted for something. But I still have no time for the 'vote for the best alternative' option. Someone previously in this post said words to the effect of 'would you rather get punched or kicked in the nuts?'. That is trivialising the issue to a great deal. To me it's more like ... 'and which maniac would you like to lead your country to war this time?' ;)

[Guest Dr Who]

Now that is something I have to say that I have taken from this most enjoyable debate!  I will be going to a polling station this time.  I had no idea previously that spoilt ballot papers actually counted for something.  But I still have no time for the 'vote for the best alternative' option.  Someone previously in this post said words to the effect of 'would you rather get punched or kicked in the nuts?'.  That is trivialising the issue to a great deal.  To me it's more like ...  'and which maniac would you like to lead your country to war this time?'  ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately I feel that may be all too true Dr Blow! And personally, I think punched in the nuts. As long as it wasn't from directly underneath.

I have enjoyed the opportunity to get on my soap box as well! I do it to my friends all the time. Glad you have been radicalised to make your mark. Now if you can convince any of your friends with a like mind to do the same. Just think if we could get the spoiled papers to get more 'votes' than the party that came first! Based on the last elections voting figures it would be possible.

And I would certainly agree Squall. 50% is too high. At that rate we would need much greater immigration to provide all the other skills in society that would be lost in the rush to graduation.

Edited April 28, 2005 by Dr Who

[Guest beersoft]

i found/made up whilst on the bog a method of deciding who to vote for

http://www.modaco.com/Voting_fun-t205764.html

it proberbly needs a bit more thought but it works for me ;)

later

Owen

"VOTE MOOG for milton keynes"

[Guest drblow]

And I would certainly agree Squall. 50% is too high. At that rate we would need much greater immigration to provide all the other skills in society that would be lost in the rush to graduation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ooh, now we're onto immigration policy! ;) I wonder who said they were going to vote BNP?

[Guest mike-oh]

OK, need to lighten things up!

Now come on i know i can't be the only one who's noted this! (and carrying on my theme from the first page)

One of them uses hypnotic mind powers to control the population the other one is a fictional character from a kids TV show!

Edited May 6, 2005 by mike-oh