TORY POLICY: Scholarship for children of military dead

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by theEnd, Jan 9, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The Tories have released a policy to reaffirm their commitment to the armed forces. A scholarship for those left behind.

    "George Osborne and Liam Fox have announced that a Conservative government will provide "university and further education scholarships for the children of servicemen and women killed while on active duty." The scholarships would cover £8,210 in tuition fees and another £5,000 pa maintenance."

    Those who qualify are from 1990.

    Interesting

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8450368.stm
     
  2. Wow, I was hoping for some rebuttals or intelligent scrutiny - but clearly i'm a Tory press officer after votes!

    I am a card carrying tory but, seriously, is this policy a good idea or unworkable.
     
  3. Lets wait for this to be implimented before commenting, so far tory "cast iron" promises aren't up to a lot.
     
  4. Despite the smell of bandwagon, it's a good idea. It won't cost much, and will save them the worst of student debt. A practical help for those who have already lost so much.
     
  5. What I can't get about these policy announcements is: why aren't they already in place? Is it a deeper philosophical issue with Labour and the military, that said the last Tory government and military..?
     
  6. Nice idea, but surely will be seen as a vote getter, which it does in fact look like, why did they not do it when they were in before? ie Falklands?
    Plenty of kids left without fathers there too, so why only back to 1990?
     
  7. I just hope the funds for it are taken from the Treasury or elsewhere, rather then adding more to the already stretched budget. But it is a good idea I think.
     
  8. It's a bad idea, what about the children of blokes who are severely wounded, they miss out. How about the children of coppers (or lifeboatmen or firemen) who get killed on duty, do they have a similar case? It's a cheap gimmick.
     
  9. I don't think I've seen enough elections to not be shocked by Tory tax-cut policies. I too would count myself a tory, but I can't believe that their idea of cutting taxes and being all right-wing is to keep things largely as they are, but reward heartland and Daily Mail voters with carefully chosen carrots. Depressing.
     
  10. How about the children of people run over by buses? Why stop there? None of it is either the child's fault, or their choice, so why should the government reward them for it?
     
  11. Well if it didn't win votes they wouldn't do it - so let's be realistic about the motives, but it's the principle I'm getting to the bottom of. Did Labour propose similar schemes in 1997, or during the Falklands, or even now? Why not.
     
  12. My bold. A quick google search of the a few of the top universities show fees of £3290 for 2010/11. Will the students be able to apply for top-up grants or will this scholarship be taken into account when means-testing? It will rather limit where students can study otherwise, unless they are to use the £5k maintenance as top-up.
     
  13. Because 1982 was over a quarter of a century ago and any children of soldiers killed then will most likely have done their degree by now. War orphans from the various mid-90s operations will still be around university age.

    I have to agree with CQMS that this should apply to the children of emergency services workers killed in the line of duty too. The state's way of saying that if you die working for us, besides the pension and insurance we'll make sure your kids get a good education too.
     
  14. Playing devil's advocate: because a student would presumably have been out earning their own crust if they haven't started college/university by the age of 20? I haven't worded that right but I think you get the gist.

    Unfair on those who are currently already in further education and miss out by a year or two though.
     
  15. Call me a thick 'ole idealist, but hasn't the government made the commitment to a good education to every child in the UK? Otherwise why would we have state schools at all?