www.times-series.co.uk/news/topstories/8...converge_on_Tory_HQ/

It seems that the march last week is inspiring everyone to take to the streets. This march could attract thousands if parents and teachers join the young people in the "hot bed of anarchy" LEAFY BARNET.

If the Middle Class suburbs are marching then CAMERON and CLEGG have real problems. Even at the height of THATCHER such a march would have been unthinkable but the youngsters are outraged by being priced out of University - and that really is it.

Would YOU have taken on a £40,000+ debt at the age of 18 ? in order to get a degree - for many of those marching this is more than their parents earn in a year ( av wage is around £22,000 - £27,000 depending on whether you include unemployed )

With the Uni students organising a DAY OF ACTION on 24 NOVEMBER which includes marches and local actions against Lib Dem MPs - this issue is set to run and run.

There are already several TORY MPs who have said they will vote against the increase. IN University Towns they are threatening the "Recall" of MPs if they vote FOR the increase.

This is the biggest political issue since the POLL TAX for the Country in terms of "tax".

Have a day off, luv. Please.

BR seems to totally miss or avoid the simple, clear and obvious point that the UK is now financially unable to provide (as he advocates) free education - for all - until 21. We already have free healthcare for all/for life (from the NHS, the third largest employer in the world); where else can you get free education AND healthcare?

Nowhere - because any such country would be bankrupt.

I don't mind him missing the point. I just rather resent the blanket moral denunciation of everyone who doesn't follow his lead. He's a well-meaning soul, but my god it's tiring at times.

The alternative viewpoint - from the Students at OXFORD CHRISTCHURCH UNIVERSITY

www.times-series.co.uk/uk_national_news/...hike_in_fees/?ref=mr

So there you have it - the RICH students back the hike in fees.

Ever feel that the drawbridge is being pulled up.

The cost of fees is easily affordable by the way. The war in AFGANISTAN is about three times the amount annually that it would cost to give FREE education to every student.

So in 2010 I would say that anyone opposing FREE University fees on the basis that we cant afford it - is basically saying in their view that WAR is more important than education.

I really cant see any argument to justify charging £9,000 a year to students and saddling them with debt.

The majority of graduates from ALL colleges - including Oxbridge - don't earn anything like the top wages which are talked about. The people at the top often have not even been to University and often are basically "wide boys" and "criminals" who have not been brought to book because they are slippery.

I have seen the way in which bankers and lawyers etc behave during my life - and I can say quite simply that the people I met in Pentonville were more trustworthy than most bankers and lawyers that I have met. They have been "silver tongued" and like BLAIR have a conviction when telling their untruths.

As people we are lied to every day by our media - by our leaders - and we are expected to accept it.

CAMERON came in to change things ( like Obama ) and is already U TURNING on almost every policy. He is becoming no different than Mr Gordon Brown who in turn was no different to the lying Blair etc.

We are being taken for mugs by our political one party state. We crow about being better than BURMA - at least the people there know they have no freedom. We carry on believing that we have freedom - but the REMEMBRANCE SUNDAY of 2010 rings very hollow for me. My Grandfather fought in the First World War and he would not recognise the UK in 2010. It is finished as a country - totally bankrupt of humanity - apart from some Churches and some Mosques this country is basking in the evil of "Love of Money" "Child Pornography and exploitation" and "success at all costs even if it means lying through your back teeth".....that is the UK in 2010 and our Armed Forces occupy "Peasant" lands in the Middle East and we are expected to think that is noble ? in what way ? are we at risk from some poor farmer in Afganistan mounting a "Blitz" on us like Hitler ? I dont think so - the most we could expect is a cow pat thrown on the British flag ( if they can afford to buy one )

We are totally stupid - can any of you see how stupid we have become - you even believe we are bankrupt.....The Bank of Englan can print a TRILLION pounds tomorrow if we want - no problem. It can print money at will because it is not linked to any Gold Standard - LOL - it might stoke inflation - but if it goes to covering debt that would be unlikely.

You have all been conned - and it is sad to think that our Young People have to MARCH in order to afford their education when we see the BANK bosses paying themselves £1 million bonuses this Christmas and MPs paying themselves £100K expenses each year and Police Chiefs taking £33,000 bonuses on top of their £150K salaries.

Loads of money out there for the elite - there is no shortage of money - the money supply is only being cut off for the poor and middle classes who are being drained of their money for the Banksters and FTSE executives who have seen their wages rise by 27% this year - no shortage of money there.

I am amazed that clever people dont see this ?

BR wrote:
anyone opposing FREE University fees is basically saying that WAR is more important than education

War IS more important when people are being abused and tortured.

BR wrote:
We are totally stupid - can any of you see how stupid we have become -

You have all been conned -

I am amazed that clever people dont see this ?

It's like watching a dog chase its own tail.

Janine wrote:
BR seems to totally miss or avoid the simple, clear and obvious point that the UK is now financially unable to provide (as he advocates) free education - for all - until 21. We already have free healthcare for all/for life (from the NHS, the third largest employer in the world); where else can you get free education AND healthcare?

Nowhere - because any such country would be bankrupt.

you could in Oz until recently and the pollies who changed that were all university educated for free.

none of this is really free of course as you pay taxes-it's just re-distributing wealth.

Personally I don't see the problem with government employers like the NH being hugely staffed.

One thing cannot be denied-as employment has fallen , along with the opportunity to create jobs, and corporations move their jobs and profits off-shore, profits have soared.

Thanks Ricky, you write:

"War IS more important when people are being abused and tortured."

War IS abuse and torture. Just the other day Bush came out and admitted he authorized torture and said he had no regrets. Did anyone notice? Abuse? We invaded that country because they refused to hand over a war criminal. The US already harbours war criminals. Look up Luis Posada Carriles. The difference is, the latter was actually convicted. Osama bin Laden was merely suspected and after the largest criminal investigation in history by the CIA no evidence was found that he actually committed the 9/11 bombing, hence he is not on the most wanted list for 9/11. Check their website and see. Don't take my word for it.

Meanwhile we invade this country, despite the fact that when they asked for evidence against bin Laden (who, by the way, we trained and termed a Freedom Fighter when he was fighting the previous occupiers of Afghanistan: Russia) we disdained to offer any, and they then offered to hand him over to an Islamic court in an intermediary nation. None of that was good enough. We invaded, failed to find the evil one-eyed monster-du-jour and spent vast, vast sums of money waging war on humble villagers and tribesmen tearing their houses apart with close air support, destroying bodies in an orgy of barbarity. The original stated reasons for invading forgotten, we quickly invent new ones: promoting democracy and rebuilding society. Of course we have no right rebuilding anyone's society who has not asked us to (not according to me but according to international law) and if we cared about democracy we would not punish the Palestinians for voting for the wrong man and would not be so silent on the most brutal tyranny in the world: our friends the Saudis.

Now, unctious and self-righteous, we find we have run out of money. Someone says stop spending it on the killing fields of Afghanistan. BTW: we don't even count our victims. How many are they? And the reply comes that we must spend money on the mass slaughter of natives whose crime is to resist our occupation (a right enshrined in international law) because we are protecting some unspecified victims from "abuse and torture".

What torture do you suppose compares with the torture we inflict, and which disturbs us so little now that we don't even count the corpses?

You may find it helpful, if you want to understand anything at all about the world, to simply take a brief look at the uncontroversial facts of history.

The conventional line on Afghanistan presented by the corporate media is absurd. To miss its absurdity requires great self-discipline. For one thing, you have to studiously avoid remembering yesterday's news. I commend you on your magnificent obedience and restraint.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Fair play, Jim. Ricky, you are nothing more than a gimp swallowing the propaganda that the government shits out.

It is preposterous how much money is allocated for "defence" purposes.

This country was under a far greater threat during the IRA's bombing campaign of the mainland. It really is all bollocks.

It's also worth noting that the British government thought nothing of waterboarding Irish "political prisoners" for many years.

Thanks Balls and Jim.

But the question of cost cannot just be ignored in such statements; where will the money come for free health care and education?

An awful lot of people also have free housing, are on benefits and get a fuel allowance; why not give them free travel as well?

They deserve to get around.

Jim wrote:
Now, we find we have run out of money

At last Jim, you recognise the problem.

Most of your points about war etc. are probably correct - but, as has been asked by several posters - how can the UK fund free education for all, as well as free healthcare?

Do you know?

I believe the funding problems are due to the previous government's mental target of 50% of young people going to university. To achieve this, good a-level grades are handed out like sweeties, and bobbins degree courses are created to help the less suitable students limp through from year to year.

Now, academic degrees are simply not suitable for half the population. They should be academically tough, for the clever kids who do well in exams. Of course, there are also other kinds of intelligence: people who are a whizz fixing engines, or skilled at with their hands, or with a flair for art and clothing design. Society needs these people too, but they are not really subjects where you can produce academic work and study.

The solution is simple and obvious. Recognise that there are different types of intelligence and areas of aptitudes and skills. Support an education sector that can deliver a wide range of education and training (including institutions like the old polytechnics or technical colleges and others). Restore the academic standard of university degrees and their entrance qualifications, be they a-levels or whatever. The smaller numbers going to university on academic merit could then probably be funded.

I also agree with the above posts about chucking away money (and lives) in Afghanistan. This money dwarfs the amount that would be spent on education.

Thanks Elaine, you write:

"Most of your points about war etc. are probably correct - but, as has been asked by several posters - how can the UK fund free education for all, as well as free healthcare?

Do you know?"

First, an apology, then an answer to your question. You correctly quoted me as saying "Now we find we have run out of money". I was being ironic. I should not descend to such things and it plays badly in written form on the internet. I should have said, "Now we are told we have run out of money".

In fact states never run out of money in the sense that individuals do. They can just print more. Money is an elastic commodity in the hands of banks and states, unlike you and me. The consequences of printing money conform to the law of money. All else being equal it causes inflation. But the point is states don't operate on a money in money out equivalence the way we do.

To see that states don't run out of money as we do simply look at what happened when the banks faced failure. If states could only spend what they have there would have been no money to bail out the banks. There may be adverse consequences to bailing them out but the point is the state was not necessarily constrained by the requirement to balance its budget. So it is with public spending in general, I'm afraid. I wish it were more simple. In the case of the bank bailout, however, it couldn't be clearer. States can find money when they want to. Vast sums were produced out of a hat which would previously have been unimaginable for public spending.

I'm sorry I didn't make all this clearer in the first place. From those who want to say that we have run out of money I would like to see the evidence.

Turning now to your question "Do you know?", BR has already suggested where the money could come from. Please re-read his contribution to this thread.

Best Wishes,
Jim

I should have added, Elaine:

I do not want to imply that there is no limit to public spending. I do think that the vast public spending on war has an effect on our economy. For example, it may be that the vast sums spent by the US on Vietnam contributed to its decline and weakening status as a world power since it emerged supreme from the second world war. Alternatively, or perhaps additionally, the oil shocks of the 1970s leading to high inflation in the west, were a direct result of our support for Israel against Egypt in its expansion across the Sinai desert. The Arab states openly threatened to reduce the supply of oil if we supported Israel. We ignored them and they carried out their threat, leading to sharp rises in the price of oil and horrendous inflation. This is turn meant less money for war and a decline in US (and British) power. But I digress.

The point is that I do not want to imply that there is no limit to public spending. <i>Ultimately<\i> it does have to be accounted for, but so does spending on war. And a lot hangs on "ultimately". As Keynes put it, "in the long run we're all dead".

BTW: you might also want to ask where we get &pound;75bn to replace the Trident nuclear missile system? Evidence that we have "run out of money" is very far to seek and much suggests the contrary.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Jim wrote:
They can just print more. Money is an elastic commodity

states don't operate on a money in money out equivalence

The mind boggles at the first point!

Remember all those countries with worthless currency - and the problems it caused (Germany and Zimbabwe, for instance - where inflation spiraled out of control).

If the second point was true, why bother about budgets, deficits and GDP at all?



But, maybe you were being ironic again...

Jim wrote:
you might also want to ask where we get &pound;75bn to replace the Trident nuclear missile system?

Evidence that we have "run out of money" is very far to seek and much suggests the contrary.


Perhaps the 'evidence' is that this project has been postponed for at least five years - and may never happen, due to lack of funds ?

Thanks Elaine,

I have attempted to give you a serious answer. You have responded by becoming sarcastic, by ignoring what I wrote, and by offering an assortment of fallacies, including straw man attacks, circular arguments and vague unfalsifiable assertions.

Firstly, you offer a straw man attack on my suggestion that governments can print money. You write:

"The mind boggles at the first point!

"Remember all those countries with worthless currency - and the problems it caused (Germany and Zimbabwe, for instance - where inflation spiraled out of control)."

This is a straw man attack. It would be helpful if you would read what I wrote. Where did I say printing money has no consequences? If you had read my post you would see that I said the opposite. It remains true, however, that governments can print money. If your mind boggles you are new to the theory of money. Quantitative easing is easing the strictures imposed on the economy by a too small quantity of money by increasing its supply: printing money. That is what our government has been doing.

Secondly, on Trident, you are being both circular and vague. As evidence that there is no more money you offer that Trident replacement "has been postponed for at least five years - and may never happen, due to lack of funds".

You simply assert this, but nowhere do you offer evidence for it. The evidence suggests a very different explanation. US experts advised MPs that the life of Trident submarines could be extended to 30-40 years, saving &pound;5bn. It is not evidence that there is no more money that we have not chosen not to throw it away. If you cannot provide evidence that it was postponed due to lack of money, and merely assert that it was, as evidence that we are out of money, then you are like a cat chasing its tail. I'm afraid I remain to be convinced by this oft-repeated shiboleth.

The point is that what has been strikingly absent from public debate on the Trident issue, under both Labour and the ConDems, is the rhetoric of "no more money" that has been used repeatedly to justify cuts in public services.

Thirdly, you are being wilfully vague when you state replacement "may never happen". We are all free to assert that the sun may not rise tomorrow. This is indisputably true. Using the word "may" will relieve you of any commitment to an actual outcome ensuring that what you say is true. The evidence, however, suggests the contrary. "Mr Cameron insisted the UK will retain its nuclear deterrent despite today's cost-saving announcement.". But you are free to fantasize.

Fourthly, you ignored much of what I wrote. On the bank bailout, you passed over in silence my mention of this as an example of states not always having to balance their budgets as we do as individuals. I assume have no explanation for this but find it more convenient to ignore what I write if it challenge your prejudices, and attack me instead for what I did not say. This suggests to me you're not really serious.

You also ignored my answer to your question:

"[H]ow can the UK fund free education for all, as well as free healthcare? Do you know?".

I assume you accept my answer and can see nothing wrong with BR's suggestion, having re-read his post.

Finally you write:

"But, maybe you were being ironic again..."

I have apologised once for descending into irony and have been careful not to do so again. There is no need for you to start being sarcastic.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Elaine wrote:
Jim wrote:
Now, we find we have run out of money

At last Jim, you recognise the problem.

Most of your points about war etc. are probably correct - but, as has been asked by several posters - how can the UK fund free education for all, as well as free healthcare?

Do you know?

yes via taxes spent correctly-perhaps by not blowing up Iraq etc.

Profits have escalated over the past 20 years-the rich are richer than they ever were and tax at a corporate level has been avoided as never before.

ps: yes...free travel as well..good idea.

a new generation of politicised kids..can't happen quick enough.

Jim wrote:
You simply assert this, but nowhere do you offer evidence for it

Google it Jim, the facts speak for themselves.

Trident is on 'hold' for 5 years - probably (IMO) for good!

Reason - we can't afford it...