|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 7, 2022 22:03:07 GMT
What was inflation running at when they decided to increase the fees by 300%? Must have been at Zimbabwe levels of inflation. careful introducing facts & logic to wagsarwstokie usually doesn't go down well. A little less of the rw in the middle sweetie On the subject of facts it still doesn’t alter that labour brought in tuition fees Despite them all having free university education themselves
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 8, 2022 0:05:05 GMT
the fact is Blair and his lickspital cronies decided we’ll con the daft fuckers to vote for us
Good god, the irony ...
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 8, 2022 0:42:18 GMT
LOL. As if you're trying to blame the extortionate University fees at present on labour. Let's discuss it though seeing as you raised it. Yes, Labour did introduce university fees on 1998 at £1,000 per year. This increased to £3,000 per year over the course of a decade. Those from low income families, like myself, where also eligible for maitaince grants to help with accommodation etc.. Nobody felt ripped off and the amount we paid felt fair for what we received. Now in the "coalition" government. The tories pushed through a bill to increase uni fees over night from. £3,000 a year to £9,000. Students were suddenly paying more for a year's study, than others born a year earlier were paying for their full course. Then the maitaince grants for low income families were scrapped. Then the bursaries for NHS students slowly got scrapped and replaced with repayable loans. As for Labour. Big bad scary Jeremy Corbyn had it on his manifesto to abolish student loans and bring back maintenaince grants in 2017. At least we've got Mrs Working Class anti woke, anti royal family Lizz Truss here to save us. No student loans being abolished. No corporation tax rises. No taxes on energy companies with record profits in the billions. Instead borrowing billions during a time of inflation and increasing interest rates and freezing energy prices for all. So of course those in the biggest homes with their swimming pools and heating floors saving the most. And those who vote this scum in will mostly be 6 foot under while those who pay 9k a year for an education pay for it with their taxes.* * and then also paying rent to pay of the same peoples mortgages on their 5th home too. Edit: I can spell but I have fat fingers and cba going back through trying to correct typos on my phone. Maintenance. 🥱🥱🥱 Ever heard of inflation fees wise the fact is Blair and his lickspital cronies decided we’ll con the daft fuckers to vote for us all we have to do is tell 25 odd percent of the youths who are boarding on being thick as shit you can go to some dodgy polytechnic get a degree in some ology And all your life problems are over Any thing at the time to massage the actual unemployment figures And before you accuse me of a political biases I don’t agree with the education until 18 brought in by the Tory’s just to massage employment figures Just because you personally are uneducated that's no reason to deprive others who wish to be
|
|
|
Post by knype on Sept 8, 2022 2:26:37 GMT
🥱🥱🥱 Ever heard of inflation fees wise the fact is Blair and his lickspital cronies decided we’ll con the daft fuckers to vote for us all we have to do is tell 25 odd percent of the youths who are boarding on being thick as shit you can go to some dodgy polytechnic get a degree in some ology And all your life problems are over Any thing at the time to massage the actual unemployment figures And before you accuse me of a political biases I don’t agree with the education until 18 brought in by the Tory’s just to massage employment figures Just because you personally are uneducated that's no reason to deprive others who wish to be ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/cj7bsBj2jOTuEAUVaPt5.gif)
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 8, 2022 5:57:26 GMT
The new Government appointments keep rolling in... What an embarrassment this loud mouthed fool is to the city, I cringe every time he opens his mouth anyway but yesterday was especially poor, he appears to have very little control over his emotions.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Sept 8, 2022 6:45:57 GMT
The next one ![](https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220908/1e38d4a53a6efac3d5271f5e198ad415.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Sept 8, 2022 6:56:51 GMT
The next one ![](https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220908/1e38d4a53a6efac3d5271f5e198ad415.jpg) It's difficult to tell one Rimmer from another in the Cabinet just now.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Sept 8, 2022 7:40:45 GMT
careful introducing facts & logic to wagsarwstokie usually doesn't go down well. A little less of the rw in the middle sweetie On the subject of facts it still doesn’t alter that labour brought in tuition fees Despite them all having free university education themselves I got caught up in that, think I was the first year to pay the tuition fees. It sucked but I thought it was done in a pretty fair way. Just pissed that they didn't make the older generations also carry an extra share.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 8, 2022 7:44:39 GMT
Another person who has benefitted from an open immigration policy very keen to close the door behind her. It’s good to know that this government will be as open and transparent as the last one. A tad like the last labour government who had the Benefits of free university education themselves and then drawing the draw bridge up and charging people You do know who introduced top up fees that trebled tuition fees: the tories
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 8, 2022 8:03:27 GMT
A tad like the last labour government who had the Benefits of free university education themselves and then drawing the draw bridge up and charging people You do know who introduced top up fees that trebled tuition fees: the tories Not quite they couldn’t of done it without the help of the Lib Dems So I’m sure as a reasonable decent person you’ll be happy to blame them equally On the whole point of my original post was point out the previous labour administrations were equally guilty of hypocrisy The new Home Secretary was rightly or wrongly accused of wanting to deny people access to this country where in the past her family had benefited form I merely pointed out what was the difference of labour denying free education when they had benefited from such
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 8, 2022 8:18:50 GMT
You do know who introduced top up fees that trebled tuition fees: the tories Not quite they couldn’t of done it without the help of the Lib Dems So I’m sure as a reasonable decent person you’ll be happy to blame them equally On the whole point of my original post was point out the previous labour administrations were equally guilty of hypocrisy The new Home Secretary was rightly or wrongly accused of wanting to deny people access to this country where in the past her family had benefited form I merely pointed out what was the difference of labour denying free education when they had benefited from such I think you need to add a little context to the subject of tuition fees to fully understand why they came about. I managed to dig out this old news story from the Guardian that helps with this… Plan for huge rise in university numbersThe problem Blair faced was paying for it. Hence tuition fees. It’s interesting to see how the numbers of students in university had increased from 5% in the sixties to the 50% Blair wanted. All parties were a party to this expansion, Blair just ratcheted it up big time.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 8, 2022 8:22:25 GMT
A tad like the last labour government who had the Benefits of free university education themselves and then drawing the draw bridge up and charging people You do know who introduced top up fees that trebled tuition fees: the tories I think you meant to write you do know who accepted and implemented the recommendations of a Labour commissioned review and report on university funding, so unlike you to be wanting someone else to pay for you.....
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 8, 2022 8:28:17 GMT
Fancy wanting more of the populace to be better educated!
It's a bit like wanting more people to be able to access better healthcare too.
You do have to pay for these things however, although the other alternative is the current one, where neither seem to be particularly desirable and therefore not worthy of appropriate levels of funding.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 8, 2022 8:28:51 GMT
Not quite they couldn’t of done it without the help of the Lib Dems So I’m sure as a reasonable decent person you’ll be happy to blame them equally On the whole point of my original post was point out the previous labour administrations were equally guilty of hypocrisy The new Home Secretary was rightly or wrongly accused of wanting to deny people access to this country where in the past her family had benefited form I merely pointed out what was the difference of labour denying free education when they had benefited from such I think you need to add a little context to the subject of tuition fees to fully understand why they came about. I managed to dig out this old news story from the Guardian that helps with this… Plan for huge rise in university numbersThe problem Blair faced was paying for it. Hence tuition fees. It’s interesting to see how the numbers of students in university had increased from 5% in the sixties to the 50% Blair wanted. All parties were a party to this expansion, Blair just ratcheted it up big time. Problem is that too many courses are of no use to students when they reach the real world of work, apprenticeships would be much more useful to many. I was lucky poor A level results meant the dosser ELS, Media Studies type courses weren't an option so I went straight to an accountancy course and did professional body exams.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 8, 2022 10:20:46 GMT
You do know who introduced top up fees that trebled tuition fees: the tories Not quite they couldn’t of done it without the help of the Lib Dems So I’m sure as a reasonable decent person you’ll be happy to blame them equally On the whole point of my original post was point out the previous labour administrations were equally guilty of hypocrisy The new Home Secretary was rightly or wrongly accused of wanting to deny people access to this country where in the past her family had benefited form I merely pointed out what was the difference of labour denying free education when they had benefited from such No, had the lib dems had a majority government there would be no tuition fees at all. It is tory policy to have high tuition fees.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 8, 2022 10:21:32 GMT
You do know who introduced top up fees that trebled tuition fees: the tories I think you meant to write you do know who accepted and implemented the recommendations of a Labour commissioned review and report on university funding, so unlike you to be wanting someone else to pay for you..... Am I wrong that the tories introduced top up fees then?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 8, 2022 10:24:40 GMT
Does anyone agree with Truss: Tax payers should pay all of the £130bn or so to cap energy prices, rather than getting the energy companies with anticipated profits of over £150bn to contribute?
In circumstances where the big oil and gas producers have said that an additional windfall tax won’t stifle investment, how can Truss be right on this?
Surely even a £50bn contribution from those firms would be sensible to help reduce government borrowing and ease the burden in the tax payer. They can then keen their additional £100bn of profits to themselves if they like.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Sept 8, 2022 10:45:22 GMT
Does anyone agree with Truss: Tax payers should pay all of the £130bn or so to cap energy prices, rather than getting the energy companies with anticipated profits of over £150bn to contribute? In circumstances where the big oil and gas producers have said that an additional windfall tax won’t stifle investment, how can Truss be right on this? Surely even a £50bn contribution from those firms would be sensible to help reduce government borrowing and ease the burden in the tax payer. They can then keen their additional £100bn of profits to themselves if they like. Don't agree but I see the logic... If you change rules and taxes after the fact then companies won't trust you so won't invest as much. This seems like a proper national emergency though, I'd like to hear from folks who're confident Truss is right on this. Why are you so sure?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 8, 2022 10:47:55 GMT
I think you meant to write you do know who accepted and implemented the recommendations of a Labour commissioned review and report on university funding, so unlike you to be wanting someone else to pay for you..... Am I wrong that the tories introduced top up fees then? Well if you believe a Labour government who proudly left a message there was no money left was going to ignore the recommendation of the report / review they ordered......
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Sept 8, 2022 10:50:17 GMT
Does anyone agree with Truss: Tax payers should pay all of the £130bn or so to cap energy prices, rather than getting the energy companies with anticipated profits of over £150bn to contribute? In circumstances where the big oil and gas producers have said that an additional windfall tax won’t stifle investment, how can Truss be right on this? Surely even a £50bn contribution from those firms would be sensible to help reduce government borrowing and ease the burden in the tax payer. They can then keen their additional £100bn of profits to themselves if they like. I would be ok with it on the proviso that the energy companies don’t ask for tax breaks or further investment from the government to enable them to develop the required infrastructure to improve our energy production in this country. They need to fully fund that themselves, including a stronger commitment to renewables and using the resources we have available from a natural perspective to support that approach. Treat this almost as a loan, with a view to maintaining affordable price levels for the UK consumer now and in the future. This will drive investment in the uk, creating jobs and careers for the future, yes their profits & shareholders will take a hit in the short term but long term they will also benefit from a robust and solid infrastructure that they have developed now. We’re either all in this together or we’re not - the energy companies have a great opportunity now to make this happen.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Sept 8, 2022 10:54:00 GMT
Does anyone agree with Truss: Tax payers should pay all of the £130bn or so to cap energy prices, rather than getting the energy companies with anticipated profits of over £150bn to contribute? In circumstances where the big oil and gas producers have said that an additional windfall tax won’t stifle investment, how can Truss be right on this? Surely even a £50bn contribution from those firms would be sensible to help reduce government borrowing and ease the burden in the tax payer. They can then keen their additional £100bn of profits to themselves if they like. Don't agree but I see the logic... If you change rules and taxes after the fact then companies won't trust you so won't invest as much. This seems like a proper national emergency though, I'd like to hear from folks who're confident Truss is right on this. Why are you so sure? Because the £170bn profits are worldwide profits only a small amount of which would be taxable in the UK (mainly the sales made in the uk are taxable in the uk), these uk profits are already taxed at 65% tax rate in the uk, the windfall tax really appears to oggy because he always without fail prefers someone else to be taxed more.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 8, 2022 10:57:32 GMT
Does anyone agree with Truss: Tax payers should pay all of the £130bn or so to cap energy prices, rather than getting the energy companies with anticipated profits of over £150bn to contribute? In circumstances where the big oil and gas producers have said that an additional windfall tax won’t stifle investment, how can Truss be right on this? Surely even a £50bn contribution from those firms would be sensible to help reduce government borrowing and ease the burden in the tax payer. They can then keen their additional £100bn of profits to themselves if they like. In principle I agree with you but in practice I would doubt the Energy Companies ingenuity to shift profits around and pay little if anything Shell and BP for instance haven't paid a penny in UK Tax for the last four years in fact they've had a £92M rebate www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/30/shell-and-bp-paid-zero-tax-on-north-sea-gas-and-oil-for-three-yearsIf I were an old cynic I might think tax laws are framed to facilitate this behaviour
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 8, 2022 11:08:45 GMT
Not quite they couldn’t of done it without the help of the Lib Dems So I’m sure as a reasonable decent person you’ll be happy to blame them equally On the whole point of my original post was point out the previous labour administrations were equally guilty of hypocrisy The new Home Secretary was rightly or wrongly accused of wanting to deny people access to this country where in the past her family had benefited form I merely pointed out what was the difference of labour denying free education when they had benefited from such No, had the lib dems had a majority government there would be no tuition fees at all. It is tory policy to have high tuition fees. Had the Lib Dems voted against the rise they wouldn’t of happened fact
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Sept 8, 2022 11:08:49 GMT
You do know who introduced top up fees that trebled tuition fees: the tories Not quite they couldn’t of done it without the help of the Lib Dems So I’m sure as a reasonable decent person you’ll be happy to blame them equally On the whole point of my original post was point out the previous labour administrations were equally guilty of hypocrisy The new Home Secretary was rightly or wrongly accused of wanting to deny people access to this country where in the past her family had benefited form I merely pointed out what was the difference of labour denying free education when they had benefited from such “….. they (the Conservatives) couldn’t of done it (tripled tuition fees) without the help of the Lib Dems” Absolutely correct. Privately educated Lib Dems working with privately educated Tories. There’s barely a fag paper between them at times.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 8, 2022 11:29:00 GMT
Does anyone agree with Truss: Tax payers should pay all of the £130bn or so to cap energy prices, rather than getting the energy companies with anticipated profits of over £150bn to contribute? In circumstances where the big oil and gas producers have said that an additional windfall tax won’t stifle investment, how can Truss be right on this? Surely even a £50bn contribution from those firms would be sensible to help reduce government borrowing and ease the burden in the tax payer. They can then keen their additional £100bn of profits to themselves if they like. Don't agree but I see the logic... If you change rules and taxes after the fact then companies won't trust you so won't invest as much. This seems like a proper national emergency though, I'd like to hear from folks who're confident Truss is right on this. Why are you so sure? I’m not saying make it a retrospective tax, as I agree that can have problems. But it could apply to profits over the next two years (which is the big anticipated £150bn figure we have heard quoted)
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 8, 2022 11:30:01 GMT
No, had the lib dems had a majority government there would be no tuition fees at all. It is tory policy to have high tuition fees. Had the Lib Dems voted against the rise they wouldn’t of happened fact Had the tories not included top up fees in their manifesto and then prepared the legislation to push it through Parliament there would not have been a vote on it. It is a tory policy. 100%.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Sept 8, 2022 11:37:51 GMT
Had the Lib Dems voted against the rise they wouldn’t of happened fact Had the tories not included top up fees in their manifesto and then prepared the legislation to push it through Parliament there would not have been a vote on it. It is a tory policy. 100%. It was a Tory policy which the Lib Dems voted in favour of, whether you like it or not. Put whatever gloss you like on it, but your party helped it through into law.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 8, 2022 11:38:36 GMT
Not quite they couldn’t of done it without the help of the Lib Dems So I’m sure as a reasonable decent person you’ll be happy to blame them equally On the whole point of my original post was point out the previous labour administrations were equally guilty of hypocrisy The new Home Secretary was rightly or wrongly accused of wanting to deny people access to this country where in the past her family had benefited form I merely pointed out what was the difference of labour denying free education when they had benefited from such “….. they (the Conservatives) couldn’t of done it (tripled tuition fees) without the help of the Lib Dems” Absolutely correct. Privately educated Lib Dems working with privately educated Tories. There’s barely a fag paper between them at times. There is now though. Lib dems called for the cap on energy prices not to rise, labour followed, the tories followed today it seems. Lib dems called for windfall taxes on energy firms, labour copied and then the tories U turned on it - interesting to see if they do again. And we all know the differences on brexit and green policies between tory and lib dems. They are massively different now. Weren’t so different back before the coalition. Oh wait. They were: the lib dem manifesto before the coalition they were against top up fees, for gay marriage (tories stole that one), for increased minimum wage (tories stole that), for SEIS relief for small business investment (tories stole that one), for pupil premium (tories stole that one), for splitting high street and investment banks (tories stole that one), for green investment funds (tories stole that one), for massive investment in apprenticeships (tories stole that one), So all the above coalition policies were in the lib dem manifesto (apart from top up fees) and missing from the tory one, but under the coalition the tories were persuaded to introduce them/ stole them as their own. Save for top up fees, which was a tory policy and the lib dems idiotically voted with them so as not to bring down the coalition government. But don’t let the truth about the differences between the lib dems and tories get in the way of your hatred towards lib dems for voting with the tories on top up fees Remember, only lib dems opposed the Iraq war. Labour and the tories were all for it. The lib dems called for more regulation of the banks pre financial crash. That was opposed by the two other parties.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 8, 2022 11:41:02 GMT
Had the tories not included top up fees in their manifesto and then prepared the legislation to push it through Parliament there would not have been a vote on it. It is a tory policy. 100%. It was a Tory policy which the Lib Dems voted in favour of, whether you like it or not. Put whatever gloss you like on it, but your party helped it through into law. Absolutely. I am not denying it. But it was not a lib dem policy. All parties make mistakes. The iraq war supported by labour and the tories is a good example. So is the lack of regulation on banks pre financial crash by tories and labour. The lib dems were on the right side of history on those two issues, which are far more important and consequential than top up tuition fees.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 8, 2022 11:42:28 GMT
Does anyone agree with Truss: Tax payers should pay all of the £130bn or so to cap energy prices, rather than getting the energy companies with anticipated profits of over £150bn to contribute? In circumstances where the big oil and gas producers have said that an additional windfall tax won’t stifle investment, how can Truss be right on this? Surely even a £50bn contribution from those firms would be sensible to help reduce government borrowing and ease the burden in the tax payer. They can then keen their additional £100bn of profits to themselves if they like. I would be ok with it on the proviso that the energy companies don’t ask for tax breaks or further investment from the government to enable them to develop the required infrastructure to improve our energy production in this country. They need to fully fund that themselves, including a stronger commitment to renewables and using the resources we have available from a natural perspective to support that approach. Treat this almost as a loan, with a view to maintaining affordable price levels for the UK consumer now and in the future. This will drive investment in the uk, creating jobs and careers for the future, yes their profits & shareholders will take a hit in the short term but long term they will also benefit from a robust and solid infrastructure that they have developed now. We’re either all in this together or we’re not - the energy companies have a great opportunity now to make this happen. The energy companies are not “all in this together”. They are legally obligated to look after their shareholders and that is all.
|
|