Danny Alexander on QT

Sir_Humphrey

Sapphire wrote: »

Having said that, I think it would be a grave error for the Lib Dems to decide to abstain or vote against the policy – a sign of weakness, particularly because they have been involved in setting it.

It is against constitutional convention for Lib Dem ministers to vote against government policy under the doctrine of collective responsibility. Having an S of S abstaining on a policy he is promoting is unthinkable.

This is exactly why they should have gone for confidence and supply.

leveller2911

StevieJ wrote: »

In general I agree with you in vocational training and higher quality and lower numbers of degrees, however I have to point out that on the last set of stats I saw we were number 6 in the industrial production league.

http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2009/10/13/data-on-the-largest-manufacturing-countries-in-2008/

The figures if accurate would back up your view, but where is all this UK manufacturing going on? is it some distant Colonial outpost ? as I just can't seem to find much of it going on, that said if we are in 6th position all the rest below us must be absolute pants at making stuff

ILW

I cannot see why the 60 or 70% of the population who seem to be making a living without the benefit of a university education should be paying for a load of students to study for worthless "mickey mouse" degrees, which will show no benefit to this country. I of course exclude the "harder" subjects such as medicine, engineering etc.

Sapphire

StevieJ wrote: »

I think hypocrite is too nice a word for what the LibDems have done, BTW are you saying that the coalition shouldn't be held to account?

Held to account for what?

Sir_Humphrey

ILW wrote: »

I cannot see why the 60 or 70% of the population who seem to be making a living without the benefit of a university education should be paying for a load of students to study for worthless "mickey mouse" degrees, which will show no benefit to this country. I of course exclude the "harder" subjects such as medicine, engineering etc.

Which subjects are "hard"? How do you decide?

Fact is, the country as a whole needs graduates so the country as a whole should pay for them. Many of the organisations for which non-graduates work rely on graduates.

What you do not realise is that doing a degree is not vocational training; it is about educating people so they can think for themselves. This is certainly a skill that University taught me.

ILW

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Which subjects are "hard"? How do you decide?

Fact is, the country as a whole needs graduates so the country as a whole should pay for them. Many of the organisations for which non-graduates work rely on graduates.

What you do not realise is that doing a degree is not vocational training; it is about educating people so they can think for themselves. This is certainly a skill that University taught me.

Are you saying that anyone without a degree is incabable of thinking for themselves?

leveller2911

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I wouldn't know.


What percentage of decision makers went to Uni? [/QUOTE]


Well probably the vast majority, which just backs up my view that Society as a whole gains little from masses of people going to Uni.

You seem to imply that going to Uni makes them more Qualified to make decisions, this is clearly wrong.How many Bank executives went to Uni? Mp,s ?? Your digging a hole 1984 ....:D

Sapphire

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I just see a load of older people with cash in the bank that have had their free educations & benefited at a time of a country accumulating debt not wanting for fork out to the younger generation that will be paying for everyones education even their parents..

Its not 'a load of older people with cash in the bank'. Many older people did not have free higher education (everyone still has free primary education) because until recently only a small proportion of the population went to university. Also, many older people do not have cash in the bank, having been employed in jobs that did not pay them enough to accumulate huge amounts of savings, and not wanting to speculate on property or shares, etc.

Those who do have cash in the bank should help their kids if they want to go to 'uni', not make this a burden on taxpayers, many of whom have not been to university themselves. Perhaps all those who have been to university (or 'uni') should pay for the fees of future students; those who have not had the benefit of further education certainly shouldn't.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

leveller2911 wrote: »

You seem to imply that going to Uni makes then more Qualified to make decisions, this is clearly wrong.How many Bank executives went to Uni? Mp,s ?? Your digging a hole 1984 ....:D

What hole?

What percentage of people making the decision to cut funding from students went to Uni & received the benefit of free & subsidised education?

Provide the answer & then I will see if I can dig myself a hole.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Sapphire wrote: »

Its not 'a load of older people with cash in the bank'. Many older people did not have free higher education (everyone still has free primary education) because until recently only a small proportion of the population went to university. Also, many older people do not have cash in the bank, having been employed in jobs that did not pay them enough to accumulate huge amounts of savings, and not wanting to speculate on property or shares, etc.

Those who do have cash in the bank should help their kids if they want to go to 'uni', not make this a burden on taxpayers, many of whom have not been to university themselves. Perhaps all those who have been to university (or 'uni') should pay for the fees of future students; those who have not had the benefit of further education certainly shouldn't.

See above..