Wow! A country that actually cares about the cost of education. Should get more interesting tomorrow when the WMD report comes out. ________________ Blair Narrowly Beats Back Party Rebellion 2 hours, 18 minutes ago By MICHAEL McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer LONDON - Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) narrowly defeated a rebellion in his governing Labour Party on Tuesday against plans to increase university fees. Lawmakers voted 316-311 in favor of the legislation, offering Blair a welcome boost before Wednesday's publication of a report on the death of a weapons adviser, which added to a furor over the government's case for the Iraq (news - web sites) war. Blair sat on the government front bench in the House of Commons as the result of the vote was announced to loud cheers from Labour lawmakers. Ministers had embarked on an intense last-minute campaign to win support for the bill, which is the centerpiece of Blair's legislative program. Many Labour lawmakers had viewed the proposals as a betrayal of a 1997 election promise that there would be no tuition hikes, and the bill crystallized party divisions over the direction of government policy. A defeat would have been Blair's first in Parliament since taking office in 1997. Under the bill approved Tuesday, universities would be able to charge students up to $5,500 a year, to be paid after they leave school and start earning. Colleges currently charge a flat-rate fee of $2,025 which is paid upfront. The government says the increase would provide an extra $1.8 billion a year for higher education. Education Secretary Charles Clarke has also pledged scholarships for poorer students and promised a system to help ensure that more people from working class backgrounds enter higher education. Tuesday's vote meant the bill passed its second reading, which is an agreement on its basic principles. It next goes before a committee of lawmakers who consider the legislation in detail and suggest possible changes before submitting it to a third reading in the Commons. If approved at that stage, the bill moves to the House of Lords, which can delay or amend the legislation but not block it. The proposal becomes law after winning the backing of both houses and receiving royal assent. Doubts about the war in Iraq will be back in sharp focus on Wednesday, with the publication of Lord Hutton's report on the apparent suicide of David Kelly, the weapons scientist who was identified as the source of a report questioning Blair's case for war in Iraq. Hutton, a senior appeals judge, held hearings on the preparation of the government's intelligence dossier in September 2002, which warned of the dangers of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
What a great system. A flat rate for certain colleges to be repaid after the student gets out of school and starts earning. That might be the first step towards having a more educated workforce (and populace).
Well, you know, we do have a program that allows students to pay their tuition, etc. after they get out of school and start earning. Students use the program to the tune of roughly $40 billion per year.
Well, I'm pretty sure most state universities don't charge more than $5,500 per year in tuition. At least not yet.
Isn't that because state universities subsidize the education for residents? If you compare the in state costs versus the out of state costs then you would get a better handle on the subsidies involved.
They do, but andymoon was making note of the British program of allowing students to pay their tuition after they've finished school as a good program, and I noted that we've got something like that here. (And, until very recently, we also had tuition regulated and capped by the state).
yes, the Hutton report completely exhonerates Blair in the Kelly affair, moreover, they find the claim that the Balir gov. "sexed up" the intelligence dossier "baseless." report said the 45 minute claim was based on intelligence the government thought to be true. this will not change even if the claim is later proved to be false. (i'm paraphrasing the report, not adding my own thoughts).
My tuition in my last semester at UT (Fall '02) was about $2450. But some of my coworkers that went to Michigan say that it costs much more than that even for in-state folks. Not to mention the rising tuition costs at UC Berkeley, UNC, UVA, and Ga. Tech. But I'm assuming in Big 12 and SEC country, that it can't be more than $5500.
I've got two kids, ages 6 and 1. According to the tools on some of the financial pages, I've got to come up with about $275,000 if I want to send them through all 4 years, assuming a good out-of-state school. That seems like a lot, and the 12-17 year inflation in tuition costs figured into the total is staggering.
rim, have you looked at 529 plans? they're like an FSA, you use pretax dollars, and depending on the plan you may be able to deduct you contributions from state and local taxes (new york, for instance). you can invest in any state's plan, not only the plan of the state in which you reside. funds may be used at any college in the country. take a look at Saving for College . I've got a 20 month old, and another due in 6 weeks, so this is very much on my mind. incidentally, preschool in NYC, 2 days a week, three hours a day, 10 months/year, averages about $5k/year!
Yes, I'm socking away a good chunk every month... and I'm fortunate I got about a quarter of it through an inheritance. My goal is to have enough for each kid to go 4 years undergrad and 1 year grad without worrying about carrying a part-time job. There's just a disconnect between what I think college ought to cost (what I paid in the early 80's) and what all these folks are saying it will cost when my kids go.
Even more surprising : Britons do not fall for whitewash report. Hutton was one of the judges who decided *not* to keep Peron in custody when they had him. ( for crimes against humanity ). http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/international/europe/02SPIEGEL.html Dubious Victories By MATTHIAS MATUSSEK, Der Spiegel Published: February 2, 2004 ost Britons view Blair's triumph over the BBC, which the Hutton report presented to him on a golden platter, as an undeserved gift. Some triumphs are so unlikely that the public simply refuses to acknowledge them. This is one of them. At one moment, Prime Minister Tony Blair and his New Labour project seem to have hit political rock bottom, to have sunken to the bottom of the Thames, while Conservatives and party rebels are busy handing out freshly printed copies of his obituary. A moment later he turns to face the spotlight, smiles and bows to a round of applause. . . . This is what is so astonishing about this victory for Blair: It dissolved into thin air within a few hours. What's more, it soon came to be viewed as an undeserved gift, nothing but spin, a political Houdini act. According to a survey conducted by "The Guardian," three times as many Britons trust the BBC as the government. Who should resign? Blair, and not the director general of the BBC, Greg Dyke. No one who has come to this point can hope to gain any further political currency, and certainly cannot expect the support of the press. This time, the press was of one opinion, regardless of political persuasion or class of reader. Hutton's report was "far too supportive of the government" (Financial Times), "perversely one-sided" (The Independent), "pompous" (Daily Mail), and "rinses Blair whiter than white" (Times). The journalists found the behavior of their former colleague, Alastair Campbell, to be particularly insolent. Campbell, wearing a muted suit, hurried to the microphones, presented a statesmanlike face seemingly filled with concern, demanded apologies and resignations, and had to restrain himself from victoriously waving his fist in the air. . . .
Hey, they did the same thing we did. I guess that makes it right. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=487557 Intelligence chief's bombshell: 'We were overruled on dossier' By Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor 04 February 2004 The intelligence official whose revelations stunned the Hutton inquiry has suggested that not a single defence intelligence expert backed Tony Blair's most contentious claims on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. As Mr Blair set up an inquiry yesterday into intelligence failures before the war, Brian Jones, the former leading expert on WMD in the Ministry of Defence, declared that Downing Street's dossier, a key plank in convincing the public of the case for war, was "misleading" on Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological capability. Writing in today's Independent, Dr Jones, who was head of the nuclear, chemical and biological branch of the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) until he retired last year, reveals that the experts failed in their efforts to have their views reflected. Dr Jones, who is expected to be a key witness at the new inquiry, says: "In my view, the expert intelligence analysts of the DIS were overruled in the preparation of the dossier in September 2002, resulting in a presentation that was misleading about Iraq's capabilities." He calls on the Prime Minister to publish the intelligence behind the Government's claims that Iraq was actively producing chemical weapons and could launch an attack within 45 minutes of an order to do so. He is "extremely doubtful" that anyone with chemical and biological weapons expertise had seen the raw intelligence reports and that they would prove just how right he and his colleagues were to be concerned about the claims. Downing Street was triumphant last week when Lord Hutton ruled that Andrew Gilligan's claims that the dossier was "sexed up" were unfounded, but Dr Jones's comments are bound to boost the case of the BBC and others that the dossier failed to take into account the worries of intelligence officials. Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, said yesterday that he might not have supported military action against Baghdad if he had known that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction. Acutely aware of the American inquiry into the war, Mr Blair said that a committee of inquiry would investigate "intelligence-gathering, evaluation and use" in the UK before the conflict in Iraq. Lord Butler of Brockwell, the former cabinet secretary, will chair the five-strong committee, which will meet in private. The Liberal Democrats refused to support the inquiry because they said that its remit was not wide enough. Dr Jones was the man whose decision to give evidence electrified the Hutton inquiry as he disclosed that he had formally complained about the dossier. The Government attempted to dismiss his complaints as part of the normal process of "debate" within the DIS and claimed that other sections of the intelligence community were better qualified to assess the 45-minute and chemical production claims. But today Dr Jones makes clear that he was not alone and declares that the whole of the Defence Intelligence Staff, Britain's best qualified analysts on WMD, agreed that the claims should have been "carefully caveated". Furthermore, the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which allowed the contentious claims to go into the dossier, lacked the expertise to make a competent judgement on them . . . http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040204/wl_nm/britain_dc_21 . . . Blair emerged spotless from Hutton's inquiry into last July's suicide of scientist David Kelly, who killed himself after being outed as the source of a BBC report that claimed the government had "sexed up" its dossier on Iraq's weaponry. Large parts of the media and the public have branded Hutton's report -- which lambasted the BBC -- one-sided. ANOTHER WHITEWASH? Jones, now retired from the Ministry of Defense, stunned the Hutton inquiry when he told it he had complained to his bosses over the strength of language in the September 2002 dossier. Wednesday, he went further, telling the Independent newspaper that his department's expert intelligence analysts were overruled in the preparation of that paper, leading to "a presentation that was misleading about Iraq's capabilities." "I find it extraordinary that neither Cabinet nor parliament were told that all the experts on the Defense Intelligence Staff had reservations about the September dossier," Former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who resigned over the war, said. . . .
Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act. In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests." Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained". He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said. "At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos." He claims "inertia" in the Foreign Office and the "inattention of key ministers" combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war. Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict. The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act. It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added. Mr Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross. His hitherto secret evidence threatens to reopen the row over the legality of the conflict, under which Mr Blair has sought to draw a line as the internecine bloodshed in Iraq has worsened. Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment. "What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added. Mr Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings. Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act. "Mr Ross hasn't had any approach to tell him that he is still not liable to be prosecuted," said one ally. But he has told friends that he is "glad it is out in the open" and he told MPs it had been "on my conscience for years". One member of the Foreign Affairs committee said: "There was blood on the carpet over this. I think it's pretty clear the Foreign Office used the Official Secrets Act to suppress this evidence, by hanging it like a Sword of Damacles over Mr Ross, but we have called their bluff." Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons who was Foreign Secretary during the war - Mr Ross's boss - announced the Commons will have a debate on the possible change of strategy heralded by the Iraqi Study Group report in the new year. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece
Of course, in the UK you can go pretty much anywhere for those prices. With this new bill it would cost ~5k to go to Oxford or Cambridge. Someone who has already gotten into to either has been paying ~2k a year. Imagine paying that for Yale or Columbia.
