Brendan

?21000 to my mind doesn?t really seem that high does it? You can earn double that driving a truck. Why bother going to uni?

?This could kick the Lib Dems into touch once and for all.? Is what was said to me recently by a junior tory politician I know when displaying his displeasure at not getting the post-election job he was promised if they had won outright.

All well and good but where is the capital coming from? What sort of interest rates are people going to be bound into? Who is that interest ultimately being paid to and will the profits be taxed? Most importantly why should a young person trying to make a place for themselves in the mess of a world they are inheriting from you believe you when you say that you can?t provide them with the same free education you were given? Most of these people know that their protests are a desperate and hopeless last resort as they are screwed regardless of who they vote for. Poring scorn on them because you think you know better is just unfathomably objectionable. If this has to be done (which is still debateable) it should be done with a shamed apology for the way you have failed the next generation. I can?t get my head around how someone can be smug, even self-congratulatory about forcing their children (well let?s be honest about it, other people?s children) into debt before they even have jobs.

faff

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He's done the David Copperfield one before... Have I? I really have to pay more attention.

Never said I didn?t. It seems like a good idea and I?m struggling to see how you see it as incompatible with my last points. No, haven?t you been listening? That would be a good place to start. Don?t underestimate the value of contrariness.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agree with that absolutely, in fact it sounds > suspiciously like wot it used to be like. But that > is, of cosures, in the scourge of modern equality > (mediocrity) both 'Elistist' and 'not fair' I can > hear the bleeting starting already. Any more elitist and unfair than a system where the kids of the wealthy in the tory homelands don?t have to make the choice about whether or not to go to university because mummy and daddy will pay the fees anyway whereas an immensely talented kid from a normal background may realistically have to choose not to go to university because of the debt it will land them in? Conservatives across the land may be crusting their calvins in delight at the prospect but even if we leave a decent persons moral obligation to fairness out of the equation that sort of situation is just counterproductive.

Plenty of solutions have been put forward quids. Fewer more specific university places distributed on merit etc. Sharing the cost with the entire population is not as unfair as you make it out to sound. We all benefit from having doctors, bankers and artists. We would also all benefit from having the free secondary education which produces these people available purely on merit and not ability to pay*. This country will be much stronger for that in 50 years times than it will be being populated with millions of graduates with devalued degrees and lifetimes of debt. *Although I?m not holding my breath on that ever happening this side of the revolution

The guy who made the statue of liberty disapear?

As with most things Quids, I comprehend perfectly well. I just don?t see how borrowing on behalf of our children now and then lumping them with the burden of paying it back is in any way justifiable.

But, Shirley if we are broke we don't have the cash to lend them anyway without borrowing it from someone. (why don't we just take it as a social investment) We aren't made of money.

We have an entire society aresfuked back to the stoneage because of debt and one of our solutions is to force the next generation into debt instead?

All this money that we?re going to be lend our kids to pay for their education. Where?s that coming from then? When they start paying it back are they going to see the benefit? Perhaps they may use the proceeds to educate their children for free.

Do you want to grow old in a country with a functional population who are trained appropriately to keep the entire shebang running and more importantly are able to enjoy decent stable lifestyles? Or would you conversely want to spend the last 30 years of your life in a place where if you?re rich you can have a decent standard of living but otherwise your day to day life will be a constant battle with the consequences of dysfunction in a population unskilled and consequently unable to have improved what is already a completely skewed exploitative and unfair society? But you go tell the kids what?s what. You?re very sensible and mature and know best for them. We?re not made of money are we.

Well if nothing else has come from this at least it has shown that there is one worthwhile use for the royal family. To make an amusing target for rioting anarchists.

It depends on what the economy needs and what type of economy we want/need. (Although unfortunately I think these decisions have already been made for us and we have bugger all choice in the matter) You don?t need a degree to sell houses. Or to sell shares for that matter. I would however start to get pretty fucking concerned if the people doing social work or teaching our children didn?t have them. Reading the press of late though, I truly hope that the people who think that the only issue here is petulant yoof demanding an education never went to university themselves because they are demonstrably not intelligent enough to have made it through any worthwhile selection process.

I always suspected the was Portuguese.

Well America and the trading relationship with the Commonwealth which was a lot stronger and more important to Britain back then. But he also cited the fact that constitutionally Britain is quite unique and different to the other states who were members at the time. As an example, while both are perfectly functional, European Law works quite differently from English Law and trying to run the two together can be difficult. The fact is that De Gaulle?s reasons for rejecting Britain were pretty much the same as the reasons jingoistic British Euro-sceptics give for wanting out today. But they won?t have it from a Frenchy. Which makes it a wonderful thing to say to expose their true sentiments. Also calling Quids a jingoistic Euro-sceptic is quite fun. Even if it isn?t really true.

It must be. But you're the one with the Delorean. Give the old flux capacitor a bash and go check it out.

A statement which holds its own in just about any context.

AllyCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But has anyone been "vajazzled"?!! Ok so if (like me up until a minute or two ago) you have no idea what vajazzled means so you decide to look on the internet, don't google it at work!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/australia-to-recall-booze-and-strippers-201012093335/

Unfortunately that's not some sort of euphamism.

apparently KPs just been done for speeding in Shane Warne's lambo.

'cause he wouldn't. Even if you're in your twenties you can't just go and play a test match without being in-form and fit from playing competitive cricket regularly. The idea is great though.