|
« They blinked
Main Oldest hatred, latest chapter » |
December 12, 2003
The Tories' homage to cynicism
Confirmation that the Tories' ludicrous position on university top-up fees is dictated solely by political opportunism. In the Guardian, Patrick Wintour reports the anger of a vice-chancellor after unidentified senior Tories privately admitted to him that their opposition to top-up fees was purely to garner votes. After Michael Howard became party leader, they considered whether to drop the policy but decided to keep it simply because it was 'the most popular policy they had'. Terence Kealey, vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, said: '"I don't think they know whether they should be free, or there really should be top-up fees. They are saying 'that is a debate that we don't want to get into. We just want to have a popular policy'." He added: "One Tory education spokesman said to me, 'It does not matter whether this is the right policy or the wrong policy ... What matters is that we can do nothing unless we are in power. This [opposition to top-ups] is a popular policy. Once we are in power we can then start to really think sensibly about what we should be doing." ' This is notable for two reasons. The first is the bankruptcy of Tory thinking over higher education. Preserving the status quo will a) do nothing to prevent the universities from going bust and b) will keep the government's thumb on their windpipe. The second reason is wider and deeper. It is clear both from this and from what leading Tories now say privately that absolutely everything is to be subordinated to the calculation of winning power. They will therefore not adopt positions they think are right if they think they are unpopular. Instead, they will opportunistically go with the perceived flow, on the basis that 'once we are in power we can do what we want'. This embrace of the doctrine that the end justifies the means is of course precisely how Tony Blair came to power. It is the Tories' homage to the politician whose manipulative skills continue to mesmerise them. But corrupt means lead to corrupted ends; cynical opportunism does not stop at the door of Number 10. It is the way of focus groups, deception and spin. It is based on a fundamental dishonesty. If the Tories adopt it, they don't deserve to win. After all, why vote for the cynical monkey when you can have the opportunist organ-grinder instead? Posted by melanie at December 12, 2003
Comments
You are really an extreme right-winger. University of Buckingham is private and wants all universities private. If you push this line Melanie you must push for fee-paying health care and face higher taxes. The method the buffoons in govt have selected requires much higher public spending to finance the higher fees......who can give a loan repayable over 20 years at inflation interest (ie zero real rate ?) If you were numerate rather than literate you would see that fees of £3000 are pathetic - it needs at least £10.000 to make the Blair model economic. Look how many people go bankrupt in the Us from educational debt...read the new book in the Us by the McKinsey consultant about how many families are bust becuase of education costs for junior. This policy will lead to an explsion of household debt and government borrowing Posted by: John of Gaunt at December 12, 2003 08:37 PMhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0917/p12s03-lign.html Two incomes, more debt? A new study offers a controversial theory of why today's families are having a tough time staying afloat. By Marilyn Gardner | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor As a bankruptcy expert, Elizabeth Warren has seen the devastating effects on families when their finances collapse. She has also watched the number of bankruptcies escalate, rising 400 percent in the past 25 years. By the end of the decade, she says, an estimated 6 million families with children - 1 in every 7 such families - may declare bankruptcy. This year, more children are going through their parents' bankruptcies than their parents' divorces. "Saving for two college educations while paying off a college education and saving for two retirements is tough," Mr. Abrams says According to Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi, coauthors of "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke," the average two-income middle class family today earns 75 percent more than the typical single-income family did 30 years ago. But today's family, they say, ends up with less money for everyday living expenses and savings. http://www.yourmdlawfirm.com/incometrap.html http://www.shortwoman.com/archives/000049.html
The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke ISBN: 0465090826
Editorial Reviews About the Author Book Description More than two decades ago, the women's movement flung open the doors of the workplace. Although this social revolution created a firestorm of controversy, no one questioned the idea that women's involvement in the workforce was certain to improve families' financial lot. Until now. In this brilliantly argued book, Harvard Law School bankruptcy expert Elizabeth Warren and business consultant Amelia Tyagi show that today's middle-class parents are suffering from an unprecedented and totally unexpected economic meltdown. Astonishingly, sending mothers to work has made families more vulnerable than ever before. Today's two-income family earns 75% more money than its single-income counterpart of a generation ago, but actually has less discretionary income once their fixed monthly bills are paid. How did this happen? Warren and Tyagi provide convincing evidence that the culprit is not "overconsumption," as many critics have charged. Instead, they point to the ferocious bidding war for housing and education that has quietly engulfed America's suburbs. Stay-at-home mothers once provided a financial safety net if disaster struck; their move into the workforce has left today's families chillingly at risk. The authors show why the usual remedies-child-support enforcement, subsidized daycare, and higher salaries for women-won't solve the problem, and propose a set of innovative solutions, from rate caps on credit cards to open-access public schools, to restore security to the middle class.
I think they're on to something Their comparison of costs from the late-70s/early-80s to those of today is fascinating. And their findings - that mid-income families are overextending themselves in order to get their children into safe neighborhoods with good schools, with the result that any setback (medical problems, divorce, layoffs) can mean financial disaster - is unarguable. But the authors barely touch on the core problem that has driven the middle-class to high-priced suburbs - the appalling quality of so many school systems. Suggestions for ways to avoid the two-income trap (Warren and Tyagi offer several) ought to include ideas for ways to improve schools. The authors do make one suggestion, in support of school vouchers. But vouchers have failed for the same reason schools are failing - because of teacher unions that, in effect, enforce mediocrity. Warren and Tyagi missed a prime opportunity to expand the discussion to cover the REAL issue behind the "two-income trap." To reiterate the authors' primary point, middle class families are increasingly stretching to buy houses in neighborhoods with good schools. They put themselves in a position in which they depend on both parents' incomes. Any disruption of family life -- an illness, taking care of an elderly parent, losing a job and certainly a divorce -- throws the system out of balance and often puts unbearable financial pressure on the family. The theme of the book is bankruptcy among families with children and how to prevent it. The sharks gather when they smell blood in the water. "Loan consolidators" and "loan to own" mortgage lenders press money on these weakened families at usurious rates. The all-to-frequent result is that the lenders foreclose on the house and drive the families into bankruptcy.
AMAZON.COM
Ah—even the Brits have caught the Euro entitlement disease. LOL A pack of ciggies in your part of the world costs what—$8-$9? And EVERYONE, especially young people, smokes! And you all complain of such modest education fees? Have you any idea what a university education costs in the US—even at a State university? Our students work while going to school. Let yours do the same! It's good for them. American families are going "bust" not because of college fees but because of indiscriminate spending via the credit card. Dumb students who take "art history," "anthropology" or some other non-solid course of study will be paying off their debts for eternity because they are unemployable. Better to work and go to school part-time than take out loans. " Today's two-income family earns 75% more money than its single-income counterpart of a generation ago, but actually has less discretionary income once their fixed monthly bills are paid." Well, duh, that's because they SPEND too much! "But the authors barely touch on the core problem that has driven the middle-class to high-priced suburbs - the appalling quality of so many school systems. Suggestions for ways to avoid the two-income trap (Warren and Tyagi offer several) ought to include ideas for ways to improve schools." The schools are just as bad in suburbia! The culture of blame wants to blame someone. Let's blame mothers' working instead of conspicuous consumption. The book is BS!!! Let Mss. Warren and Tyagi BOTH stay home and bake cookies. The rest of us want to contribute to society. Lili Posted by: Lilith at December 13, 2003 11:20 PMA pack of cigarettes is about £4.50, which (with the dollar at its current 11-year low) is indeed nearly $8. But only about a quarter of the population smokes. Posted by: Phil Rodgers at December 13, 2003 11:43 PMWell Lililth, Havard Law School and McKinsey are homes to those women who espouse your Hillary Clinton contept for those who "stay home and bake cookies".....it is after all one of her phrases.
Under the Government's plan for £3,000-a-year top-up fees, graduates will pay nine per cent of any annual earnings over £15,000 until their debts are cleared. If graduate debt rises to £26,000 it would take a woman earning £36,000 with two children 19 and a half years to pay back what she owes. By contrast a man earning the same salary would take 15 years.
Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are `It might have been. Posted by: Walker Tyrone at January 20, 2004 04:48 PM |
