Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Moderator Edit

The first nine posts of this topic were originally posted in "Egyptian Rebellion?" - please post any responses to the Egyptian situation there. - Tiddles

The only thoughts I have are at least the Egyptians are demonstrating for a proper reason to try and better their country. Basically the complete opposite of the student protesters in England, most of which demonstrate just for the sake of demonstrating.

I don't think much will come of it in Egypt though, it rarely does without military involvement from another country from what I've seen. Usually it'll turn deadly, people will die, the world will be shocked and the president will still be in power.

This post has been edited by Tiddles on 1st February 2011 11:14

Quote (Cefca @ 31st January 2011 13:17)

The only thoughts I have are at least the Egyptians are demonstrating for a proper reason to try and better their country. Basically the complete opposite of the student protesters in England, most of which demonstrate just for the sake of demonstrating.

Wrong. Both are justified, though the Student Protesters to a lesser extent. Nick Clegg promised no increase in fees, and reneged on that promise. The increases are rightly seen as excessive, and combined with other highly illogical actions by the ConDems. The violent action is far more unjustifiable in England, but the fact is, a government no one really voted for, is making changes few people like. It's not quite similar but not wholly opposite.

I personally feel it'd be nice if we were having our own protests on the Egyptian scale given that our government is a bunch of twits. After all, Cameron can't deploy tanks in the streets or have planes fly over British protesters - He scrapped them all.

Quote (Cefca @ 31st January 2011 13:17)

I don't think much will come of it in Egypt though, it rarely does without military involvement from another country from what I've seen. Usually it'll turn deadly, people will die, the world will be shocked and the president will still be in power.

Undoubtedly. Given that a collapse of Egyptian government has such severe implications for the Middle East as a whole don't be too shocked if the US keeps up the softly-softly please reform please approach, if only to keep Israel happy that they don't have another country with 3,000 tanks about to turn hardline Islamist on their doorstep.

Even if they do topple the current Government somehow, there will still be blood down the line. I wouldn't put it past various parties on all sides of the equation to seek to install their favoured possible leaders or to destabilised unfavourable candidates.

This post has been edited by Del S on 31st January 2011 13:49

--------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of their quotes being misattributed to Plato."
-George Santayana

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here..."
-Abraham Lincoln, prior to the discovery of Irony.

Quote (Del S @ 31st January 2011 13:49)

Wrong. Both are justified, though the Student Protesters to a lesser extent. Nick Clegg promised no increase in fees, and reneged on that promise. The increases are rightly seen as excessive, and combined with other highly illogical actions by the ConDems. The violent action is far more unjustifiable in England, but the fact is, a government no one really voted for, is making changes few people like. It's not quite similar but not wholly opposite.

Not wrong at all. Everyone else is being affected by the cuts, tax rises and such, what makes students think they should be immune to it all? Everyone knew things like this were going to happen no matter who they voted for, it was unavoidable.

I understand that people are pissed off about Clegg backtracking on his promise, but it's hardly the first (or last) time a politician has said something pre-election and not done it post-election. Even if he had stuck by it, I doubt it would have stopped it in the end.

Quote (Del S @ 31st January 2011 14:49)

The violent action is far more unjustifiable in England, but the fact is, a government no one really voted for, is making changes few people like. It's not quite similar but not wholly opposite.

I personally feel it'd be nice if we were having our own protests on the Egyptian scale given that our government is a bunch of twits. After all, Cameron can't deploy tanks in the streets or have planes fly over British protesters - He scrapped them all.

Didn't you hear? The planes weren't abandoned by Cameron, they were blown away in the snow last year, along with the service and construction industries. But yeah why should anyone protest when we can just sit at home and watch a small elite of millionaires building a liberal nightmare society and wreck any class cohesion we were developing post-Thatcher.

On topic, it's not just Egypt. Yemen and Jordan and a couple of other countries are following Tunisia's original example. I know the news line seems to be about poverty and dislike of government, but I can't help but think that all these states are some of the US' top allies in the region. Maybe just a coincidence.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 31st January 2011 15:12)

But yeah why should anyone protest when we can just sit at home and watch a small elite of millionaires building a liberal nightmare society and wreck any class cohesion we were developing post-Thatcher.

On topic, it's not just Egypt. Yemen and Jordan and a couple of other countries are following Tunisia's original example. I know the news line seems to be about poverty and dislike of government, but I can't help but think that all these states are some of the US' top allies in the region. Maybe just a coincidence.

Brilliant response there Sweety, I second it entirely.

Also Cefca, as a several times participant of those student protests I take offence at being thought of as doing it 'for the sake of it'. Also you stating that politicians go back on their word like it is commonplace: this does not make it acceptable, with things like this apparently ubiquitous and accepted by apparently sleeping societies it's no wonder the streets see unrest.

I must remind all of you that protests born from the mostly avoidable austerity measures in Europe have also taken place in France in a big way, Italy, Ireland and Greece.

Also the US connection in Egypt: they will do nothing to help the revolution there, US interests want the country as stable as possible.

--------------------

www.youtube.com/blinje
The victor sacrificed the vanquished to the heavens

Quote (Blinge Odonata @ 31st January 2011 18:26)

Also Cefca, as a several times participant of those student protests I take offence at being thought of as doing it 'for the sake of it'. Also you stating that politicians go back on their word like it is commonplace: this does not make it acceptable, with things like this apparently ubiquitous and accepted by apparently sleeping societies it's no wonder the streets see unrest.

Maybe you should read my whole statement rather than just the end.

Quote

most of which demonstrate just for the sake of demonstrating

which I still stand by. I agree with you that politicians going back on their word being commonplace doesn't make it acceptable, but people are acting as if it's a new thing when really, whether Clegg stuck by his statement or not, it would have made no difference. If the Tories wanted it to happen, it was going to happen since they're the ones with the real power.

Since you've been involved in the protests, let me ask you; what makes students think they should be immune from fee rises, tax increases, etc? Everyone else has been affected by them.


Sorry for hijacking the thread by the way. Protesting seems to be happening everywhere at the moment.

You can't take an entire group made up of thousands of protesters who are politically concious (except from a MINORITY who I concede know very little of the situation and are there for a scuffle); and state that the majority of them are just doing it for the sake of it, like a leisure exercise. What an awfully small minded statement. Get your head out of right-wing tabloids my friend because they've been pushing the same opinion.

They're not immune, if indirect taxation like VAT and others are increasing, if transport is becoming more expensive, services being cut: then everybody is affected. There are leading economical think tanks who have been proposing other ways to cut the UK's defecit, than slashing public spending, there are also street movements like UK Uncut targeting large coporations' tax avoidance. The students and their supporters are highlighting other ways, while the government is doing its utmost to feed the public the idea that 'there are no other ways.'

" We're all in this together. " Like hell we are. The cabinet are a very affluent group of people who are planning to reduce the corporate gains tax. Its clear who will be affected more than others by these measures.

--------------------

www.youtube.com/blinje
The victor sacrificed the vanquished to the heavens

Quote (Blinge Odonata)

" We're all in this together. " Like hell we are. The cabinet are a very affluent group of people who are planning to reduce the corporate gains tax. Its clear who will be affected more than others by these measures.

And increase the threshold of inheritance tax to £1m, as if £650,000 is too little tax-free...?

Quote (Cefca)

Since you've been involved in the protests, let me ask you; what makes students think they should be immune from fee rises, tax increases, etc? Everyone else has been affected by them.

It's not just students pissed off about having to pay for fees, it's much much more than that. University funding is being cut by a completely unfair 80%, which is a ridiculous amount. Even in these times of unnecessary cuts that is the biggest unjustified reduction of them all, by a long way. The fees are just to fill the gap, which it won't, despite all their claims that more fees are needed for our universities to continue to be successful, as if the extra thousands of pounds are beefing up the university funding. Also, it's the audacity of claiming that these are progressive cuts, as if cutting university funding and denying a foot in societies' door for disadvantaged students could ever be progressive. They claim that poorer students don't need to pay back anything until they earn £21k. Let's be clear, £21k is not enough to raise a family on, and having another £20k of debts on top of that is not going to help. This is a major disincentive for anyone with half a brain to understand. I honestly don't know if they're oblivious to how poorer people perceive education or they know and just want to weasel out of it. Either way is equally stupid.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

They don't have to start paying back until they earn at least £21,000 a year, you're right, but it's 9% of whatever they earn above that. So, in your example, they wouldn't even be paying anything back as they don't earn anything above £21,000.

Let's say they earn £22,000 a year. They'd be paying back 9% of £1,000, not £22,000. That's £90 a year, interest free.

I'm sorry but my family was raised on a combined income of no more than about £22,000. Granted, the economy has changed since then but not by so much that a family can't be raised on probably twice that. Obviously if it's a single parent, then it'll be different and I'd understand that, but chances are it will be two people with jobs so it'll be a bit more than £22,000.


All that's barring any horribly bad maths by me (wouldn't put it past myself) so do excuse me if I've got something horribly wrong.

This post has been edited by Cefca on 1st February 2011 01:04

I've split this from the topic on the Egyptian situation. Please do repost anything relevant to that subject in its original topic if it's got lost over here, but the majority of these posts are about something else.

Quote (Cefca)

I'm sorry but my family was raised on a combined income of no more than about £22,000. Granted, the economy has changed since then but not by so much that a family can't be raised on probably twice that. Obviously if it's a single parent, then it'll be different and I'd understand that, but chances are it will be two people with jobs so it'll be a bit more than £22,000.

It's not so much maths as supposition that's the problem. "Chances are" isn't really good enough if it prevents someone whose chances aren't from getting a decent education, and I don't think a dual parent family is anything like a foregone conclusion today.

I dare say that, in reality, a lot of the protesters still could and still can afford to go to University in the end. That isn't really the point, is it? It's going to make University a much more difficult decision for a lot of people.

A University is meant to be an institution of academic excellence. It shouldn't necessarily be all about getting a vocational degree that helps you earn more money. Cultural study would be pretty much lost that way. The problem is, now, if you finish University and go into a moderately paid job that doesn't make use of your degree, the extent of fees levied will mean that you're materially worse off for being educated compared to having worked your way up there.

But of course they're not institutions of academic excellence, because we seem to have this insane idea that we should be sending more and more people there - 50% was the target at one point. This is completely wrong-headed. The aim should be to get the right people into University - those who will benefit from the particular kind of education it can provide and have a willingness to benefit from it. That's not most people; it's not even 50% of people; it's certainly not me, having been there. Sure, fees like these will thin out the ranks, but in the wrong way - it's just one more move back towards financial and class based elitism rather than the academic elitism that ought to be employed.

The worst moment for this was the introduction of per-institution top up fees under Blair's government, so it's not as if the present regime is the only one culpable.

As for Clegg, well, sure, politicians break promises all the time - there's no point denying that. What you have to remember, though, is that his particular constituency, Sheffield Hallam, has a HUGE student population, for whom this was a key pledge. Broken promises are one thing when it's a reform that can't be wholly passed, or something of a similar nature. When you promise not to do something that will disadvantage a lot of people who are voting for you as a cornerstone of your manifesto, it's not really right to sign up to a coalition that ideologically opposes your pledge and then do the exact opposite.

Quote (Cefca @ 1st February 2011 01:03)

I'm sorry but my family was raised on a combined income of no more than about £22,000. Granted, the economy has changed since then but not by so much that a family can't be raised on probably twice that.

This is a rather simplistic view of things, but if you must try to use a hypothetical example then you've gotta factor in the rising taxes, rising inflation, rising cost of pretty much everything to try and deal with the former.

Also, whomever used the term 'rebellion' to talk about Egypt is the wrong word to use and it is definitely wrong in the context of England: Protest is not illegal, it is not a rebellion.

Cefca: I'm pretty sure that paying 9% of what is earned above the £21k threshold is incorrect, but it's kinda irrelevant as there is the debt to pay back. It's not going away after all, the lump sum will still be hanging above those graduates heads, a larger amount than gradates currently have to deal with; still gathering interest.

To deal with these higher fees, the government will be offering larger student loans, which will leave it out of pocket for around 4/5 years at the very least! No return will be seen on this 'investment' before this batch of students begins earning over £21k
Oh and here's the kicker: debts not paid after 30 years are written off... right. So this may sound fair to the student but it will be thousands of pounds pissed away under the new system. You're right actually, it makes perfect sense...

--------------------

www.youtube.com/blinje
The victor sacrificed the vanquished to the heavens

Quote (Tiddles @ 1st February 2011 11:42)

It's not so much maths as supposition that's the problem.  "Chances are" isn't really good enough if it prevents someone whose chances aren't from getting a decent education, and I don't think a dual parent family is anything like a foregone conclusion today.

Even if it was a single parent family, I don't think it would be as big a problem as is being made out. In my example above, at the lower end of the annual wage scale, it's £90 a year they'd be paying back (or £7.50 a month). Even if you're raising a family, that's hardly breaking the bank. Even at, say, £35,000 it would be £1,260 a year (or £105 a month). Yes that seems like a lot of money but not so much when you consider they're geting a yearly wage better than most people could dream of (and a pre-tax monthly income of just under £3,000 to boot).

Quote

The worst moment for this was the introduction of per-institution top up fees under Blair's government, so it's not as if the present regime is the only one culpable.

That and this all comes from the Browne report comissioned before the Convervatives were even in power. I know I'm probably sounding like a Tory but, honestly, I'm not.

Quote (Blinge Odonata @ 1st February 2011 11:53)

This is a rather simplistic view of things, but if you must try to use a hypothetical example then you've gotta factor in the rising taxes, rising inflation, rising cost of pretty much everything to try and deal with the former.

I realise all that and I did factor it in. I know taxes and inflation have risen and so has the cost of living but not by the huge amount that you seem to think would make one person incapable of raising a family on the same amount two parents had to while paying back a pittance on their student loan every year.

Quote

Cefca: I'm pretty sure that paying 9% of what is earned above the £21k threshold is incorrect, but it's kinda irrelevant as there is the debt to pay back. It's not going away after all, the lump sum will still be hanging above those graduates heads, a larger amount than gradates currently have to deal with; still gathering interest.

It is correct. It is, in fact, the same now only the threshold is £15,000 rather than the £21,000 it is going to be. 9% on anything above that.

Yes, there is the debt hanging over their head, but it's not like they're forced to pay it all back in one lump sum or even by anymore than 9% of their earnings above the threshold. I'll admit that I'm unsure about the interest. All I know is that it rises from 0% for £21,000 earners to 3% + inflation for £41,000+ earners. So by the time you're paying a decent amount of interest, your repayments will more than cover that. Forgive me if I'm mistaken on this part.

Quote

Oh and here's the kicker: debts not paid after 30 years are written off... right. So this may sound fair to the student but it will be thousands of pounds pissed away under the new system. You're right actually, it makes perfect sense...

That doesn't make a lot of difference in my opinion. The same happens now after 35 years. If they haven't paid off their student loan after 30 years, I don't see them having managed to after 35 years if it had stayed like that. I know I'm just assuming again, but would you disagree? Sure, there might be some cases where they would, but I'd bet my life savings that, in most, it wouldn't happen.