h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Right now the House of Commons is full of frantic whips trying to save Tony Blairs bacon.

I wonder what the result is going to be.

I have no idea, but I get the feeling it's going to be a close one

I think Blair will *probably* pull-through. He's far too much a canny operator to allow a commons vote to put his premiership in any sort of jeapoardy.

And I know you'll disagree with this DD, for obvious reasons , but I hope Blair wins and stays in power because without him the tories have a real chance of winning the next election.

Damn I was hoping it was gonna fail, then have a call for a vote of confidence for Thursday. Looks like I've lost that 6-1 £5 Paddypower bet.

*checks betting slip*
Nope, I've got til the end of February. Here's hoping he has a difficult month ahead.

I can't help myself but

Actually, while we're at it, what is everyone's opinion on the whole "tuition fees" thing? The students all seem to be against it, but some people are arguing that it's actually a *progressive* measure, as it means that the well-off, rather than the poor, are made to pay for University Education and that, therefore, it spreads the wealth around a little more. I don't really know what the proposals are exactly. Some students are claiming that it will mean they are "poorer" whilst at Uni, but I thought the fees were paid off *after* they were earning a certain amount per annum in a job.

Oh come on!
3 MPs is all it would've taken to swing the vote the other way.
Oh well, always Hutton tommorrow.
Oberon2001

Aye, that'll be good for a laugh

Nah he's not gonna take the fall for that unfortunately. Why do you think Hoon didn't go the other week, he's Tony's fall guy.

Watching this on Newsnight. It was interesting to see that the Tory party are dead against this bill which they attacked before the vote as "damaging to the independence of universities and damaging to students". As I said before, some people have claimed that this bill is a progressive one which move the burden of student debt from the public (including low-earners) to the wealthy (ex-students who are in high-paying jobs). What is everyone's thoughts on this? (Yes, I'm fishing for a "serious" debate here, people ).

I know, silly. It'd be good otherwise though, eh?

Do you think it was a good thing changing all of the polytechnics into universities? Wasn't there more of a range of degrees at appropriate levels for students when there were different institutions.

I am pro comprehensive education by the way.

I think everyone should get an education which meets their needs. If this is to be universally applied then it should be universally paid for - through taxes.

If we tax our domestic UK students higher for having taken degrees does that mean overseas graduates who get jobs here will be paid more (net) than our graduates? How would the market deal with that?

Would you have to pay your loan back if you got a job abroad? Wouldn't it lead to another potential brain drain?

POLITICS!?!

And here I thought this thread would be about the Petas!

Voting is coming soon in the Peta's Jimi hold fast for now.

Personally I don't see how letting med students enter employment with £18,000 of debt is going to encourage our best students to take up medicine they'll go to a three year accountancy or law degree to end up with a smaller debt and higher initial revenue to pay it all back. After all what would £9000 be to a fast track good young lawyer or accountant.

Zagreb, I protested against the introduction of Student Loans when I was a student. Showing my age I know. But then I saw what I see happening now. We are heading to system of education where ability to pay will outweigh ability to learn. This is bad, soon you A'level or Higher Qualifications will not be worth the paper they are written on as to go on to higher education will soon depend on you willingness to go into debt.

Well, I for one am quite happy for my tax pounds going to pay for someone's university education - after all, that person might be the teacher that encourages my own kids into learning, or even the doctor that discovers the cure for my gods-awful period pains..

DD, I can definitely see your point but I think that the reason this has been touted in the first place is that University funding is costing too much. Two of my friends (who don't agree on much else ) are agreed on one solution to this problem which is to have less students going to university and college and that the best way of creating that situation is to do away with all the so-called "Mickey Mouse" courses.

I agree Z that there are a number od Mikey Mouse course out there that don't have any practicular use. However it is the employers fault for demanding any degree at all even to empty their bins.

What is a Micky Mouse course? If you don't teach English is an English degree any more useful than a degree in Knitting or Media Studies? Should degrees only be purely vocational to suit employers?

Good question. Some people would consider Journalism, for example, to be a valid course whilst I, who quit my Journalism course, think it's a waste of time. There are a lot of courses, this one included, that just don't give the student what they need the most - experience. It's all very well sitting in a Media Studies tutorial arguing the merits of this newspaper and that radio station, but in my opinion you might as well just get out there and prove yourself.

What also annoys me is the fact that there are people continually being refused promotion because of graduates. These people can do the job just as well, probably better, but just because they don't have a couple of letters after their name they're looked over.

*nods in agreement*