Comments on: Who should you vote for?

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:05:00 +0000

Labour -6
Conservative -61
Lib Dem +88
UKIP -21
Green +76

Re: Higher education - I've always thought that relying on parents is a particularly bad idea. Imagine persuading some parents that you want to study art history instead of law - and if they are the 'funding body' what they say goes.

That said, I'm consistent, I don't believe in inheritance (of wealth), so higher inheritance taxes should be used to reduce tuition fees etc. I don't believe that I should (overly) benefit from the wealth accumalated by my parents, nor do I believe that my ability to make a choice as to how I want to be educated as an adult should depend on their largesse.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:16:00 +0000

My results:

Labour -23
Conservative -38
Liberal Democrat 54
UK Independence Party -4
Green 30

(Roughly correct.)

By: Stuart Dickson

Stuart Dickson — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:03:00 +0000

Crikey. I’m supposed to vote Green. No way José!

I’m an SNP man.

http://scottish-independence.blogspot.com/2005/04/who-should-i-vote-for.html

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:02:00 +0000

I got +2 for UKIP, which is much higher than I'd have been comfortable with - again, because I'm only guardedly pro the constitution (in principle I'm in favour, but I have strong misgivings about the current framework) and decidedly and increasingly negative about the single currency.

But I am strongly pro-Europe in most other respects and think the basic platform on which UKIP is running is daft (as, demonstrably, are many of its most high profile activists), so I wouldn't vote for them even after three years of hourly Guantanamo-style "questioning".

On the other hand, I got minus 33 for 'Conservative', which is much more like it. And, like everyone else, I seem to be a Lib Dem at base, though I suspect I'll end up voting Labour (not that it'll make a blind bit of difference in my neck of the woods).

By: Matt Daws

Matt Daws — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:20:00 +0000

Pete’s point is a good one, but I have this urge to point out that fees, as opposed to a lack of grants, are *loans* which need not be paid back until one is earning a reasonable wage, and which are pegged to inflation. Of course, students also need money to live off, and in realistic terms, this will come from parents if they can pay, and from costly loans or jobs isf they cannot pay (or don’t wish to). But I think there’s a vast difference between the debt I have (which I don’t have to pay off yet, despite notionally having a job in academia) and generalised "debt" which is a much larger millstone.

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 11:07:00 +0000

At age 18, you need your parents consent to be educated, but not to be killed.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:58:00 +0000

Never really understood the phrase "middle class kids" in this context. What we’re talking about are 18-year-olds (and therefore adults), by and large with no income or assets (and therefore not middle class). It so happens that we maange to get their parents (a set of middle class adults) to shoulder the burden of supporting them, but I’m not sure why that should be thought of as a giveaway.

By: Matthew Turner

Matthew Turner — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:13:00 +0000

A nice low UKIP rating for me, I'm pleased to say:

Labour 10
Conservative -37
Liberal Democrat 38
UK Independence Party -10
Green 5

John -- the reason pensioners who are poor should get more than 35 yr olds is surely simply that there are employment prospects are so much poorer for so many reasons, one of them the law? That's why those on incapacity benefit get more too.

By: jamie

jamie — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:06:00 +0000

Yeah, I got Lib Dem too - but with a 25 UKIP rating, again because I don't like the Euro or the constitution.

"A lot of the argument from Trots in particular seems to ignore the fact that as it used to stand it's the single biggest transfer of wealth from the poor and working class to the rich and upper middle class."

Well I'm not a trot and I don't see anything wrong with middle class kids benefitting from free student education. Welfare systems are supposed to be forms of public insurance that apply to everyone, not a means of state enforced charity for the poor (and making them such is one thing that will guarantee a middle class lurch to the right). It's not the fact that middle class kids get free access to university that prevents working class kids going, and charging the parents of middle class kids in itself does nothing to ensure that more working class kids will go. Framing it as a wealth transfer is a bit of a red herring.

By: Gert

Gert — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 09:40:00 +0000

I'm with you on the student fees issues. A lot of the argument from Trots in particular seems to ignore the fact that as it used to stand it's the single biggest transfer of wealth from the poor and working class to the rich and upper middle class. Obviously, there are wider societal benefits in having highly educated people, but it remains a fact that it is a Welfare State handout predominantly used by the offspring of the better off.

I actually feel that University fees should be charged at the same rate as school fees on a person-by-person basis. I'm not quite sure how that would work in practice and what the unintended consequences would be, but it would make me laugh.