PDA

View Full Version : Tony Blair is the most awesome guy in the world



RXP
02-17-2005, 01:56 PM
He was on tele yesterday getting grilled by the public but he's so good at what he does. He does it week in week out on PM's questions too.

I'd like to see GWB go one PM questions sessions. Ha.

wheelchairman
02-17-2005, 02:30 PM
He may be good at spin, but he's an ass. Now I'm going to use an out-dated joke. He's the best Conservative Minister England's ever had.

RXP
02-17-2005, 02:35 PM
Spin, spin, spin.

He's no connie. Top up fees benefit the poorest students, he's done working families tax credit, done so much. Just cause he ain't a blatent socialist. Blair in my book is good shit.

wheelchairman
02-17-2005, 02:41 PM
I'd say his party is far better than the actual man, oddly enough. Too much privatization, together with a ridiculous foreign policy is just terrible. The tragic thing is, he's better than his opposition (I mean the Conservatives, not the rest of the Labour party.)

RXP
02-17-2005, 02:45 PM
His foreign policy is awesome. You know my feelings about this.

I agree about priviatisation. But which leader does everything you want?

wheelchairman
02-17-2005, 02:49 PM
hmm true true, you know I'd prefer to see a communist party (I'm not sure which one in England, never paid enough attention) in power.

Jesus
02-17-2005, 02:59 PM
Top up fees benefit the poorest students, he's done working families tax credit, done so much. Just cause he ain't a blatent socialist. Blair in my book is good shit.

Top up fees is the most retarded thing you can have for uni financing. It's just designed to keep people from finally doing something usefull after their "student faze".
He'll still get elected though, 3 times margret , 3 times tony, yeaha. I already asked you before in some topic but you didn't read it I guess. How much does it take to change your outdated electoral system?

RXP
02-17-2005, 03:14 PM
Top up fees is the most retarded thing you can have for uni financing. It's just designed to keep people from finally doing something usefull after their "student faze".
He'll still get elected though, 3 times margret , 3 times tony, yeaha. I already asked you before in some topic but you didn't read it I guess. How much does it take to change your outdated electoral system?

No idea about your question.

But have you actually read into top up fees? Don't read the middle class media spin. Top up fees are awesome. They enable more poor kids to get into higher education. Because people like me who have no fucking money get to go in free. It's the middle classes that have to pay.

You only pay if you get a job that pays well. What's so bad about it?

Why shoudl a general tax increase pay for univeristies? Why should someone else pay for my education, my benefits? If I get a degreee and get a better job with a higher income, I should pay for it. I woudln't mind paying.

But the main thing is it gets poor kids into uni. That is a good thing.

And there's nothing wrong with Blair. I really don't get what the big deal over him is. Yeh Iraq but the rest of the shit the connies latch onto are the best one could do in the situation. Rest assured if those fags get in the middle classes will benefit but the rest of us won't. Fuck 'em.

Jesus
02-17-2005, 03:55 PM
No idea about your question.

But have you actually read into top up fees? Don't read the middle class media spin. Top up fees are awesome. They enable more poor kids to get into higher education. Because people like me who have no fucking money get to go in free. It's the middle classes that have to pay.

You only pay if you get a job that pays well. What's so bad about it?

Why shoudl a general tax increase pay for univeristies? Why should someone else pay for my education, my benefits? If I get a degreee and get a better job with a higher income, I should pay for it. I woudln't mind paying.

But the main thing is it gets poor kids into uni. That is a good thing.


Well our ideas how society should be are completely different.

Anyway, sure it enables more poor kids to get into uni, but i think it's a bad way to do it. Firstly it limits your options after you graduate, I don't think you won't have as many young doctors spending for instance a year or so in Africa because of the top up fees.

Neither do I think it's fantastic to have debts when you're that young and you are like going to build a house and stuff. It's basically the period you need the most money, make the least and then you have a debt to pay back? nice

How high does your salary have to be to satrt paying back? Cause if more kids go to uni and graduate the salaries will go down.

About society paying for education; I think everyone should pay for education via taxes, just like they pay for roads and public transportation.
If the goal really was to have more kids into universities they could have based scholarships on income or make education comepletely free. Much more effective.

RXP
02-18-2005, 01:46 AM
Why should everyone else pay for my eduaction? If the funding was gained from taxing 60% on incomes over 100,000 I'd agree for sure. Those rich bastards can re-distro their income. But the general population shoudln't pay.

I personally think the whole university system needs a big overhaul. For arty subjects like History, English, Law etc. there is no need for such expensive fees. I can honestly say I'm doing my course basically on my own with very little help from the university teaching. What am I paying for? It's a joke. For subjects like the sciences obviously you need the equipment but for others all you need is a library, some classes and lectures.

Anyone can lecture, you don't need to be an expert. And most often those who aren't experts are the best teachers. Classes, well post-grad students do ours and they're actually quite good (one is awesome). You don't need to pay these lecturers. The problem is, however, the real thing they do is give our tution fees to uphold the university as a research institute. And to be honest in the arts subjects this is a waste of money. The academics can research without all that money, it's just about hitting the library.

So in sum, if they changed the university teaching methods there would be no need for top up fees.

And top up fees aren't like a normal loan. You only pay if/when you can. If you don't get a job you simply don't pay. I don't see how this is a disinsentive to work. If it is, it's because the students are lazy cunts who need to get a job and pay back what they used.

You only pay if your income is good, the problem is that students are too gready. They turn into middle class idoits who want more and more money.

RXP
02-18-2005, 01:48 AM
wtf I think I turned socialist.

Marion
02-18-2005, 02:27 AM
Tony Balir could have done a lot more for students. In Scotland the uni are better subsidised for poorer kids we give grants not top up fees. He could also have done more for pensioners, disabled and health. Sorry to disagree with you but I want him out in May. I will admit he is better than some but he is the best Tory in years.

RXP
02-18-2005, 02:40 AM
Shame he won't actually be out. ha.

Marion
02-18-2005, 02:42 AM
Yes it is a shame. But at least they will be out in scotland in two years

Jesus
02-18-2005, 03:25 AM
Why should everyone else pay for my eduaction? If the funding was gained from taxing 60% on incomes over 100,000 I'd agree for sure. Those rich bastards can re-distro their income. But the general population shoudln't pay.


Everyone shouldn't pay for your education, they should pay for everyones education instead (depending on how much they earn). Progressive taxing in general afterwards is far more better than "top up fees" will ever be.

Then you say that you don't have to pay back your loans when your income isn't "good" (depends on what you consider good, how high does your income have to be to start paying back?), then everyone is paying anyway.

That's why in my opinion free education or scholarships based on income togheter with a progressive tax system is much better.
Sure "top up fees" is probably a better thing than you had before (in letting poor students start higher education), but they could have choosen a much better solution then they have choosen now. Kind of like letting health care go down the hole, and then saying privatizing is the only option left... .

RXP
02-18-2005, 03:38 AM
But they are never gonna be able to get a higher progressive tax rate than we already have. I totally agree with you otherwise. See my last post in questions about marxism.

RXP
02-18-2005, 03:45 AM
How much does it take to change your outdated electoral system?

I was thinking about your question last night. I didn't do any research into it but the doctrine of Parliamentary Soverignty means that Parliament can basically do whatever it wants. Therefore, it can easily pass legislation to reform the electoral system but because you cannot entrench legislation in our constitutional structure a future act could change it yet gain.

Further, Parliament is obviously controlled by the ruiling party. How likely are they going to want to reform an electoral system that they benefit from? It would be neigh on impossible to pass a Bill.

So in theory yes, in practice no.

Jesus
02-18-2005, 04:54 AM
True, haha sort of reminds of the Greens here. After we switched to a system of 10 equal districts (with 15 seats in each district), they were for an electoral threshold of 5% in a dsitrict and they becamse the victim of it in the next election. Oh the irony.

Betty
02-18-2005, 03:33 PM
I go to school to sleep at a desk in the back of the classroom and I get payed for it. Well, not much, but still I get money. That's kinda a job...

That was posted in that job thread.

And I thought when I skimmed it that that's the kinda attitude that really frustrates me.

I have so many issues with the whole paying for everyone's education thing.

1. If your education is free, what motivates you to get good grades?
2. If you're going to have to pay ridiculous amounts of taxes if you get a semi high paying job, what motivates you to get that job?

I was thinking on my walk to school this morning what the fundamental difference in my way of thinking was. I'm going to be in school for 10 years. I hope to make a decent wage when I eventually get a job. Hopefully at least $60 000 (CDN) but I'd prefer to be making over $100 000 within a bit of time. How is it fair that after devoting 10 years of hard work to learning something and getting a good job, I have to pay like $40 000 in taxes? For people to go sleep at their desks?

It's useless to argue though, but that's what I think.

I still think the loan system is great though. Because education is an investment in getting a better job. You more than get back what you pay for it.

Also, I agree with you RXP about the tuition thing. I'm in chemistry and I think I get WAY more out of my tuition than the arts students do. I use expensive equipment and expensive chemicals and get laboratory instructor time nearly daily. So yeah, the arts students get ripped off.

But then again, I think getting a degree in a lot of those subects is pretty pointless anyway cause it's not *that* useful for a future job unless you teach or do something entirely unrelated, and you can pretty much learn it on your own time by getting ressources, etc. So, I don't have that much pity, cause you know what to expect going in.

Law though, is useful. And expensive. So that's not really the kinda program I'm referring to.

Sully
02-18-2005, 05:07 PM
Fuck Labour - " Hard work pays off for working famillies" absolute crap!!

ermdevi@tion
02-18-2005, 05:31 PM
A question to Betty: do you simply attend education for the prospect of gaining a highly-paid job in the future? Does job satisfaction or indeed enjoyment of your learning not contribute to your choices at all?

As was said by my teacher, "the degree gets you in the door, you've gotta show them what you're made of in the interview!"

And Tony Blair, well, he's a great politician when he's under pressure, has followed his policies well and kept the economy stable. However, I find his constant claims to "still consider himself a socialist" to be frankly insulting :mad:

Edit: When I say great politician, I don't support his policies, just recognition of his public speaking/arguing skills :D

Marion
02-19-2005, 06:01 AM
Edit: When I say great politician, I don't support his policies, just recognition of his public speaking/arguing skills :D
He is very good at speaking. I don't like the man on the few occasions I have had to speak with him either through letters or telephone I have found him very unhelpful and clueless.

Piedude
02-19-2005, 09:02 AM
Boris Johnson for PM! Can any Brits here honestly say they wouldnt consider voting for him?

im da hui
02-19-2005, 09:56 AM
i hate people on benifits why should i pay for someone how never payed attention in school and dosent have to work like the rest of us! :mad:

wheelchairman
02-19-2005, 10:42 AM
i hate people on benifits why should i pay for someone how never payed attention in school and dosent have to work like the rest of us! :mad:
How much work could you possibly do? There are people on welfare who work two full-time jobs, and still live below the poverty level.

Also you seem to be obsessed with taking away living aid to the crippled and mentally ill.

Jesus
02-19-2005, 11:36 AM
That was posted in that job thread.

And I thought when I skimmed it that that's the kinda attitude that really frustrates me.

The person is like 14 and from Romania, typical teen, she'll get over it. She probably get's like the equivalent of around 5 (us)$ a month anyway, since the average wage is a bit over a 100 $ (yes really) (http://www.factbook.net/countryreports/ro/Ro_GDP.htm) a month in Romania... .



1. If your education is free, what motivates you to get good grades?
2. If you're going to have to pay ridiculous amounts of taxes if you get a semi high paying job, what motivates you to get that job?

The corny stuff, nice tiny family later, doing something you wanna do and that's usefull for society (which is basically the case with most jobs) and just for pleasure. Just like i read stuff or try to find out how things work without it actually being something "usefull" for me (difference in bandwidth for analog/digital cable for instance, completely unimportant)



I still think the loan system is great though. Because education is an investment in getting a better job. You more than get back what you pay for it.

Also, I agree with you RXP about the tuition thing. I'm in chemistry and I think I get WAY more out of my tuition than the arts students do. I use expensive equipment and expensive chemicals and get laboratory instructor time nearly daily. So yeah, the arts students get ripped off.

Firstly about education being an investment in getting a better job. You as a neo-con classifies "better" probably as a better payed job. Not everybody thinks that way. For instance the communist doctors over here, they work completely free for poor people, they spend lots of time in 3rd world countries and since a lot of them are members of the communist party they have to live by the minimum wage.
With the current system in the UK they probably don't have to pay their loans back, but that's probably going to be the next step of the neo-liberals anyway. Paying back even if you don't make much... .

Secondly, so the art students or most otherstudents for that matter are paying for all that fancy equipment you use. Following your logic you would have to pay like 6 times more than them. Even most standard neo-liberals wouldn't agree with that since that would give the wrong incentive.

Betty
02-19-2005, 12:26 PM
To clarify to a couple of questions:

"Firstly about education being an investment in getting a better job. You as a neo-con classifies "better" probably as a better payed job. Not everybody thinks that way. For instance the communist doctors over here, they work completely free for poor people, they spend lots of time in 3rd world countries and since a lot of them are members of the communist party they have to live by the minimum wage. With the current system in the UK they probably don't have to pay their loans back, but that's probably going to be the next step of the neo-liberals anyway. Paying back even if you don't make much..."

A "better job" does not necessarily mean a higher-paying job. I guess I am implying that it should be high-paying enough to live comfortably, but not necessarily oh my god, super rich. Like I said, I will be in school for ten years, and probably won't be earning THAT much in a relative sense. Obviously I will be doing it so that I can get a job that I ENJOY and have enough knowledge to be able to accomplish important things. If I wanted to be rich, I would probably be a doctor and specialize. But I don't really like that sorta thing as much.

Also, I would totally support somebody getting their education paid if they agreed to work minimum wage or less for the good of the world. But when somebody gets their education paid at the expense of others who aren't even earning that much and then get amazing jobs, that's not the same situation at all. But really, how many people are that selfless? I'm not, and I'll admit it. I have the utmost admiration for people who *truly* are that way.

"The person is like 14 and from Romania, typical teen, she'll get over it."

Yes, but people are still like that when they're older. That argument doesn't fly. At least totally. Some people grow up, some people don't.

"A question to Betty: do you simply attend education for the prospect of gaining a highly-paid job in the future? Does job satisfaction or indeed enjoyment of your learning not contribute to your choices at all?"

I half answered that question already. But no. That is one of the attitudes that bothers me as well. When I'm in school, I DO MY WORK to better myself, to learn the material, to increase my knowledge. Yes to get grades as well, but that pays in the form of scholarships that pays for my schooling. But even if I couldn't attain grades THAT good, I would still try my hardest because I feel you have to put the most into things. A bunch of people go to school and do the least work possibly simply to get that piece of paper that says they have a degree on it.

RXP
02-19-2005, 01:04 PM
People who attend university SOLELY or mainly for knowledge are a waste of money. You can do that shit at home without wasting the governments money.

I can read all I like at home. It's different if you are truely need the university's facilities like a particle accelerator or the chem lab. But arts students need a library, electronic resources and time. That's it. To be fair my uni does have subscriptions to services like westlaw and Lexis which means I can look up cases, statutes, journals etc. but that can be free given by the government.

I also despise people who go to university solely to earn money. It should be a bit of both. But those who laze about doing shitty courses like media studies becuase they want a good time are a waste of money.

Trust me I know enough people who are lazy cunts in uni. They are wasting money, wasting money that poor working class kids could use. It pisses me off no end.

I know this one girl. She sits at home ALL FUCKING DAY. Doesn't have a job. Doesn't go to lectures. Only goes to classes because if she doesn't she'll get kicked off. And still she skips loads of 'em. She gets a poor persons loan (4000) because her parents aren't earning much but they have a lot of wealth. They have enough wealth to buy her a 5k car pay for insurance and everything. She uses the loan to spend money on her 100 hair cuts.

Now a poor kid could be using that money in grant form. It pisses me off no end that people like her are allowed to go to university. And the sad thing is there's lots of 'em like that.

Then there's me, I'm supporting myself thru uni I get the 4k government loan but it's not enough so I have to work my ass off in a job. I should be getting her loan money as a grant cause my parents don't have wealth.

This might have seemed like some random rant but those of you who think top up fees and paying for your education is bad are mistaken. People like her won't waste uni because they know the fiscal penality. Only the poor should be allowed a free education, those who really need it.

If I get a qualification out of it I should pay for it.

And to argue that it's the neo conservative agenda behind top up fees is wrong. The Conservatives in the UK actually oppose top up fees. They want a different method.

Betty
02-19-2005, 01:16 PM
Ahh... I love it when at least somebody else has similar feelings as I do regarding that kinda thing. I could tell similar stories, but I'll spare you... haha...

Also, it's true education should be both for a future job and personal enlightenment. But people who take philosophy or whatever just for personal enlightenment, then the public wouldn't even be paying them to eventually contribute to society, they would be paying them to sit and debate philosophy. I have taken philosophy courses cause it's super interesting, but majoring it it would not be productive.

And it's true, conservatives don't even like the idea of loans, or "top up fees". In that regard I would be a "soft" conservative I suppose, because I like loans. And I think loans should be more widely available to middle class students, because they can get screwed over too. Sure my parents make "lots", but they have 4 kids and tons of payments to make. And they were poor like 8 years ago so have no savings. But I can't get loans due to lack of parental financial contribution. I'm lucky cause I get scholarships, but other people in similar situations who don't get the grades have a much harder time. Actually, I have a solution for them too though: bank loan. More interest, but better than no solution. That's what I have.

felix_leiter
02-23-2005, 02:39 PM
I dont know much about top-up fees, so correct me if I'm wrong.

The top up fees thing shows how awful the prime minister is. He was first elected on the promise that he wouldnt introduce them. Now he is. He's a liar.

What about those just above the threshold where you start getting help. They're fucked they'll be in debt for years.

There's no giant middle class who hoard all the cash in the counrty. Things are a little more complicated than that. Something like top-up fees sound ridiculous.

akira
02-24-2005, 04:41 AM
He may be good at spin, but he's an ass. Now I'm going to use an out-dated joke. He's the best Conservative Minister England's ever had
:D

England's situation in politics is weird ... conservatives are lamer than ever ... tony's lame (privatisation ... what a sick idea) ... what about the libs ?
I could register to vote at English elections ... but I don't even want to.

stathis21
02-27-2005, 12:41 PM
Tony Blair is gay :p :p :p :p !!!!!!

Piedude
02-28-2005, 09:10 AM
What do you call ppl who live in Birmingham?

Brummies, think Jasper Carrot

Piedude
03-01-2005, 12:22 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1575000/images/_1579328_carr_150.jpg
Him

dexterisMYman
03-01-2005, 12:25 PM
Im American but hey I would prefer Tony Blair over Bush ne day