---

by The_Host
I despise Blair and his ilk intensely for Iraq (I have my own views about how Saddam could have been dealt with, before anyone calls me heartless), but I had sympathy for his position on the 'Newsnight' special the other week, while his interrogators came across as rather selfish. Maybe I'd feel different if I had ever considered going to university, but I don't see why people should have the benefits of courses funded by other tax payers when those students may well bog off abroad and never give back what they owe.

In a way, Blair in in Gilligan's shoes, condemned for what saying something he couldn't justify, but not being able to simply say 'I was wrong back then, but I'm right now'. Ironic.

---

If they're lumbered with £50,000+ of debt, is that not added incentive to pack their bags, and in effect recieve a free education?

Top-up fees seem to rest on two principals: that you should pay only for what you benefit from; and that a university education only benefits the recipient. Coming next: loans to cover NHS treatment, loans to cover unemployment benefit ... why not start em young, loans to pay back the cost of school. As any good bank will tell you, debt is the new black!

I wouldn't benefit from vocational courses, but I'd be more than happy to see my tax money go into funding them. And that takes me to the second point, which is Thatcher's "there's no such thing as society" slogan at full swing. Society benefits from doctors, nurses, social workers, teachers. Other degress will take people into high earning careers where they benefit the economy. Ironically, because of it's competetiveness, Blair's scheme will see medecine become the most costly degree for a student to take.

As selfishness goes, it doesn't seem to get much better than top-up fees. I hate the assuptions they're feeding off, reducing society to a company and us to its debt-ridden shareholders.