[Archived] Election

[Paul]

Poor old Norman Lamb is getting slaughtered by the Question Time audience. Cameron really has set the LibDems up on this one.

[modes98]

I find it strange that I support these increases, yet most who are against it on here, I assume aren't paying for student loans at all. Bizarre

I think it's worth it.

People have the right to protest and by god have they! The political party they voted for, whom pledged to oppose tuition fees, have right royalty sold out to gain power and now plan to not only keep but triple the fees.

How can you support fee increases as a concept? Why should students bare the entire cost of a degree, if they are able to pay? I don't expect to pay for my healthcare or pay for road to be kept in good condition. Society is setup so that the more able support the less able, although not in a tory britain, a britain without a conscious. A britain where the lower middle class are penalised for being smart and burdened with debt. The current system encompasses a level of debt that is nationally suitable and not one that stops all that deserve the right to further education the priviledge without the obsurd £40k debt hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives.

Clegg has led the Liberals into a new dawn, one that will also be the apocalypse for the party with young voters.

Please read this Jim??? The poorest will be better off and paid less

http://www.factsonfees.com/index.php

Please try and understand the facts and figures before you say these statements as if they are facts.

The less well off in society will never be better off for tuition fee increases. Even if the poorest are given grants, which don't cover all the fees btw, there is still a massive percentage who have to cover tuition fees over the rest of their career rather than the wealthy who get it paid off by mommy and daddy.

After watching the whole debate I'm also very annoyed that Ed failed to present a viable alternative from the Labour aspect, there were plenty of options and enough time. Get your act together and attack this kneejerk poor coilition.

[Nate]

The less well off in society will never be better off for tuition fee increases. Even if the poorest are given grants, which don't cover all the fees btw, there is still a massive percentage who have to cover tuition fees over the rest of their career rather than the wealthy who get it paid off by mommy and daddy.

After watching the whole debate I'm also very annoyed that Ed failed to present a viable alternative from the Labour aspect, there were plenty of options and enough time. Get your act together and attack this kneejerk poor coilition.

Welcome to my world. I have a debt from my degree and I'm about to do postgraduate for 1 year at a cost of 20k. I don't bitch and whinge about it and definitely don't feel the need to go swinging off a national flag on a war monument or setting fire to things.

As for Ed, it's becoming apparent the wrong brother was elected.

[Rovermatt]

Poor old Norman Lamb is getting slaughtered by the Question Time audience. Cameron really has set the LibDems up on this one.

The Lib Dems would be well advised to hang on in there with the coalition. Another election in the near future would result in a slaughter for the party.

[BuckyRover]

People have the right to protest and by god have they! The political party they voted for, whom pledged to oppose tuition fees, have right royalty sold out to gain power and now plan to not only keep but triple the fees.

How can you support fee increases as a concept? Why should students bare the entire cost of a degree, if they are able to pay? I don't expect to pay for my healthcare or pay for road to be kept in good condition. Society is setup so that the more able support the less able, although not in a tory britain, a britain without a conscious. A britain where the lower middle class are penalised for being smart and burdened with debt. The current system encompasses a level of debt that is nationally suitable and not one that stops all that deserve the right to further education the priviledge without the obsurd £40k debt hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives.

Clegg has led the Liberals into a new dawn, one that will also be the apocalypse for the party with young voters.

Please try and understand the facts and figures before you say these statements as if they are facts.

The less well off in society will never be better off for tuition fee increases. Even if the poorest are given grants, which don't cover all the fees btw, there is still a massive percentage who have to cover tuition fees over the rest of their career rather than the wealthy who get it paid off by mommy and daddy.

After watching the whole debate I'm also very annoyed that Ed failed to present a viable alternative from the Labour aspect, there were plenty of options and enough time. Get your act together and attack this kneejerk poor coilition.

What percentage of people are you talking about? How many can cough up £21k in cash to pay?

What is wrong with personal responsibility? You get the benefit, you pay it back?

Anyway, it's done now, and we know Labour would have done the same. As someone as said already when asked if he would reverse it Ed basically said no, highlighting that he believed in the policy but went against it to cause trouble.

Wait ten years, and see how many graduates are complaining about their CRIPPLING fees.

Not many I would imagine.

My student loan is currently at about 4.2% of my wage.

[thenodrog]

A few interestings things I read today

- If uni cuts were made in line with other cuts, fees would 'only' need to rise to £4,000

!

1. I'd imagine that it would not need to rise at all if only the top 35% were allowed places at University and the number of universities were vastly reduced.

2. Would encourage O and A level students to strive harder at school.

3. Would focus kids along a definite career path instead of the current situation where so many are meandering along like a flock of sheep casually repeating 'I don't know what I want / am going to do when I leave uni.

If the above conditions were met then this country could again view funding the most intelligent and capable to a University degree as a true investment for the future instead of the wishy washy, waste of time, money and human resource that it is for so many now.

The less academically gifted amongst our kids (and ourselves) have been hoodwinked for years, and in particular by Blair's govt, into believing that not having a degree in the likes of media studies, events management etc etc etc will severely damage their futures despite there being not enough jobs (or money) in those subjects to match the numbers qualifying in them.

It's time we as parents and employers used our own grey matter and recognised what a complete load of balloney that it all is. 60% of further education imo is simply a way of massaging unemployment figures and paying for it by indirect taxation of the middle classes.

[thenodrog]

People have the right to protest and by god have they! The political party they voted for, whom pledged to oppose tuition fees, have right royalty sold out to gain power and now plan to not only keep but triple the fees.

I TOLD EVERYONE WHO CARED TO READ ON HERE THAT A VOTE WAS A WASTED VOTE. I'M FLABBERGASTED HOW ANYONE WHO VOTED LIBDEM CAN NOW BE WHINGING! BELIEVE IT OR NOT THEY HAVE MORE INFLUENCE IN GOVT NOW THAN AT ANY OTHER TIME SINCE THE FIRST WORLD WAR. IF YOU VOTED LIBDEM THEN JUST COS YOU DONT AGREE WITH THEIR CURRENT STAND IS NO REASON TO GRIPE. YOU HAVE GOT WHAT YOU WANTED.

How can you support fee increases as a concept? Why should students bare the entire cost of a degree, if they are able to pay? I don't expect to pay for my healthcare or pay for road to be kept in good condition. WHY NOT? WHO EXACTLY DO YOU EXPECT TO PAY FOR THOSE THINGS FROM WHICH YOU BENEFIT?

Society is setup so that the more able support the less able, I THINK IN THE INTERESTS OF ACCURACY YOU NEED TO REPLACE SUPPORT WITH SUBSIDISE although not in a tory britain, a britain without a conscious. A britain where the lower middle class are penalised for being smart and burdened with debt. THAT IS THE LEAGACY OF BLAIR AND BROWNS NEW LABOUR POLICIES! LET THE SCALES FALL FROM YOUR EYES MODES The current system encompasses a level of debt that is nationally suitable and not one that stops all that deserve the right to further education the priviledge without the obsurd £40k debt hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives. ALL THAT DESERVE THE RIGHT? I'VE NO P[ROBLEMS THERE BUT BLAIR'S AIM WAS FOR EVERYBODY DESERVING OR NOT!

Clegg has led the Liberals into a new dawn, one that will also be the apocalypse for the party with young voters. EMOTIVE CLAP TRAP. AS I SAID BEFORE IF SOMEONE IS DAFT ENOUGH TO VOTE LIBDEM THEY OBVIOUSLY DO NOT EXPECT A SAY IN GOVERNMENT.

Please try and understand the facts and figures before you say these statements as if they are facts.

The less well off in society will never be better off for tuition fee increases. WELL DON'T GO TO UNI THEN. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT? THE ONES WITH ABILITY AND AMBITION WILL DO OK AND NEEDLESS TO SAY THOSE DOLLOPERS ON THE NEWS YESTERDAY WILL NOT BE IN THAT GROUP.

Even if the poorest are given grants, which don't cover all the fees btw, there is still a massive percentage who have to cover tuition fees over the rest of their career rather than the wealthy who get it paid off by mommy and daddy.

After watching the whole debate I'm also very annoyed that Ed failed to present a viable alternative from the Labour aspect, there were plenty of options and enough time. DID YOU HONESTLY EXPECT HIM TOO? HE'S A LIGHTWEIGHT. A RABBIT CAUGHT IN HEADLIGHTS. LABOURS IN FIGHTING HAS SHOT EM IN THE FOOT AGAIN.

[den]

"How can you support fee increases as a concept? Why should students bare the entire cost of a degree, if they are able to pay? I don't expect to pay for my healthcare or pay for road to be kept in good condition. WHY NOT? WHO EXACTLY DO YOU EXPECT TO PAY FOR THOSE THINGS FROM WHICH YOU BENEFIT?"

Gord. You're better than that - I hope.

[SAS]

I went to Uni because it was expected of me, I soda course which has not yet benefitted me. I now have 9k of debt to service.

The reason I have not benefitted is because I stayed with the company I was with part time whilst a student and worked my way up.

The repayments from my wage go unnoticed every month.

Uni coat me two years in which I could have been doing my current job.

Had the fees been higher, most likely I would have not gone and be two years ahead in further development/ prospects in my current job.

I agree with the fee rise as it will give students more determination, and less photo's on facebook every night of my student friends going out on the ######!!!

I certainly can't afford to gout as much as these people, and even if I could I have a big responsibility (work) which would prevent me.

Maybe it's time students felt thatway.

Edit: apologise for spelling, posting off my iPhone.

[thenodrog]

What percentage of people are you talking about? How many can cough up £21k in cash to pay?

What is wrong with personal responsibility? You get the benefit, you pay it back?

Anyway, it's done now, and we know Labour would have done the same. As someone as said already when asked if he would reverse it Ed basically said no, highlighting that he believed in the policy but went against it to cause trouble.

Wait ten years, and see how many graduates are complaining about their CRIPPLING fees.

Not many I would imagine.

My student loan is currently at about 4.2% of my wage.

Me.... Five Live interview starts 2.02.40 salient point at 2.05.40. Cut straight off at the knees within a minute by John Pienaar 2.06.25.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wct6q/5_live_Drive_Tuition_Fees_Vote_Special/

[thenodrog]

"How can you support fee increases as a concept? Why should students bare the entire cost of a degree, if they are able to pay? I don't expect to pay for my healthcare or pay for road to be kept in good condition. WHY NOT? WHO EXACTLY DO YOU EXPECT TO PAY FOR THOSE THINGS FROM WHICH YOU BENEFIT?"

Gord. You're better than that - I hope.

Am I? I pay Private Health ins but I don't get tax relief for not being a burden on the NHS. I didn't pay for private education for my kids but I do believe that those who do should not be expected to pay for state education for others too. People should be able to opt out of both.

All drivers pay road tax (granted not all of it goes to building roads but I do expect to pay my share). Whilst I am able to have an income the thought of expecting someone else to subsidise me and mine through life for no good reason other than they earn / are worth more that me is appalling.

Assuming modes is able to work then who do you suggest should be the ones to subsidise him and his family through life?

I went to Uni because it was expected of me, I soda course which has not yet benefitted me. I now have 9k of debt to service.

The reason I have not benefitted is because I stayed with the company I was with part time whilst a student and worked my way up.

The repayments from my wage go unnoticed every month.

Uni coat me two years in which I could have been doing my current job.

Had the fees been higher, most likely I would have not gone and be two years ahead in further development/ prospects in my current job.

I agree with the fee rise as it will give students more determination, and less photo's on facebook every night of my student friends going out on the ######!!!

I certainly can't afford to gout as much as these people, and even if I could I have a big responsibility (work) which would prevent me.

Maybe it's time students felt that way.

Edit: apologise for spelling, posting off my iPhone.

Exactly. Well said SAS. It's past time to remove the nipple not only from one half of students but also one half of admin and lectureres too. We have created an all consuming monster in little over a decade.

[den]

Am I? I pay Private Health ins but I don't get tax relief for not being a burden on the NHS. I didn't pay for private education for my kids but I do believe that those who do should not be expected to pay for state education for others too. People should be able to opt out of both.

All drivers pay road tax (granted not all of it goes to building roads but I do expect to pay my share). Whilst I am able to have an income the thought of expecting someone else to subsidise me and mine through life for no good reason other than they earn / are worth more that me is appalling.

When you said "WHY NOT? WHO EXACTLY DO YOU EXPECT TO PAY FOR THOSE THINGS FROM WHICH YOU BENEFIT?", You weren't suggesting the option of opting out on specific services Gord, you were saying that everyone should provide only for themselves. Now maybe you didn't quite mean that, so that's why I suggested that you were better than that.

This is all about the balance between how much the individual pays - and how much the government pays. My biggest problem with this change, is that it isn't supported. It has been pushed through by a tiny minority of Conservative millionaires.

[AndyNeil]

there are so many 'facts' flying about, I don't think anybody really knows the truth. However something I heard on the BBC yesterday, was that if somebody earns £22k per year they would be expected to pay £7 per month back - now you tell me that is worth p!ssing all over a statue of Winston Churchill?

I can understand why they are protesting, but yesterday went to far and the rest.

Just imagine if that had been football supporters protesting about something (the re-intorudction of safe standing at football for example), the middle classes/press would have had a field day, but because it students being political, it is somehow justified - DISGRACE!!!!!

[koi]

What a joke:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8194089/Son-of-Pink-Floyd-guitarist-David-Gilmour-mortified-after-climbing-on-Cenotaph-in-student-protests.html

[Amo]

What a joke:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8194089/Son-of-Pink-Floyd-guitarist-David-Gilmour-mortified-after-climbing-on-Cenotaph-in-student-protests.html

I thought it was a girl.

[BuckyRover]

When you said "WHY NOT? WHO EXACTLY DO YOU EXPECT TO PAY FOR THOSE THINGS FROM WHICH YOU BENEFIT?", You weren't suggesting the option of opting out on specific services Gord, you were saying that everyone should provide only for themselves. Now maybe you didn't quite mean that, so that's why I suggested that you were better than that.

This is all about the balance between how much the individual pays - and how much the government pays. My biggest problem with this change, is that it isn't supported. It has been pushed through by a tiny minority of Conservative millionaires.

What are you talking about? Not supported?

Labour: no plans to scrap fees, will follow recommendations of the Browne report

Conservative: no plans to scrap fees, will follow the recommendations of the Browne report (and have chosen to ignore his suggestion of unlimited fees)

Lib Dems: scrap fees within 6 years.

Explain to me how these are not supported. Considering around 60% of the votes went to those that said they were going to increase fees.

[thenodrog]

When you said "WHY NOT? WHO EXACTLY DO YOU EXPECT TO PAY FOR THOSE THINGS FROM WHICH YOU BENEFIT?", You weren't suggesting the option of opting out on specific services Gord, you were saying that everyone should provide only for themselves. Now maybe you didn't quite mean that, so that's why I suggested that you were better than that.

This is all about the balance between how much the individual pays - and how much the government pays. My biggest problem with this change, is that it isn't supported. It has been pushed through by a tiny minority of Conservative millionaires.

Individuals pay tax to support government spending Den. It doesn't materialise from thin air despite what Broon thinks.

Didn't a tiny bunch of New Labour millionaires push through Tuition fees in the first place as one of their first acts in power?

However so many on here bang on about getting the rich to pay for this and the rich to pay for that, presumably cos they do not perceive themselves as rich. But who are the rich? Are they the relatively few megabucks millionaires of the Forbes list or are they just some hard working couple who manage to pay for private health and put their 1.3 kids through private education? Anybody who does either and opts out of the state provided services faces a straight increase WITHOUT any reductions in their tax burden. Is that fair? I suggest not.

[92er]

Will certain foreign students still get their tuition fees for free, i'm sure some will.

Which foreign students get their tuition fees for free?

[LeChuck]

1. I'd imagine that it would not need to rise at all if only the top 35% were allowed places at University and the number of universities were vastly reduced.

2. Would encourage O and A level students to strive harder at school.

3. Would focus kids along a definite career path instead of the current situation where so many are meandering along like a flock of sheep casually repeating 'I don't know what I want / am going to do when I leave uni.

I can't argue with that at all. Quality over quality (and lower/no fees) is much more preferable to this system.

A couple of good articles on the BBC today about people being deterred from going to uni.

One was a guy who was in dead end jobs for years, decided to go to uni, got a first in computing and now runs a successful business. He has he never would have gone had fees been as expensive as they are now. People like that are going to be lost from our economy, he would have just stayed in his dead end, lowing paying job, instead of creating business.

Medical students face £70k debt.

It's disgusting. The class divide will widen and the country will suffer.

[JAL]

Which foreign students get their tuition fees for free?

Seychelles islanders dont have to pay, think but not too sure that the Africans dont have to pay.

[arachnica]

The facts are almost a complete irrelevance in the student fees debate now. Most students I have spoken to have no idea about what the Government are proposing beyond shroud-waving (and incorrect headlines) and nor do they genuinely have much interest in the actual policy (Browne who?). The protests over the past few days are ignorant mobs interspersed with a group of hard-line Trots who are using the students as cover to push their standard anti-establishment agenda.

Unfortunately the impact of the Labour and NUS line that this is going to enhance class divides is going to put off far more poorer people from applying than the actual proposals. Under the new system students will have all their costs paid upfront and only pay back when they earn over £21.5k. An absolute minority of unis/courses are going to charge the full amount and those that do will have to demonstrate to students that they are genuinely going to have a significant positive impact on your future income prospects. If you come from a poor background, go to a good university and earn a good salary as a result you pay back a portion of your costs (probably not all at the low rates being proposed). That doesn't seem unfair or class-conscious.

The elephant in the room is the number of students actually going to university. The problem is now the cultural attachment that firms now have to recruiting university graduates for all entry level positions. I saw a project management assistant role being advertised and demanding a Bachelors degree in Business. If nothing else if graduates are minded to make a decision as to whether or not a university degree is worth the money - and the numbers reduce, it may make the job market think about whether or not their roles actually need graduates.

The position Labour are taking is ridiculous, but predictable and I suspect if the roles were reversed the same would be true.

[jim mk2]

We live in a competitive globalised economic environment, and that competition is getting fiercer. If our economy is to survive, then we all have a stake in equipping today's youngsters with what they need to take the world on – and that is why higher education has, and should be funded predominantly by the taxpayer.

By placing graduates into debt of up to £40,000, we are making them question the very point of education, and we limit their ambition in the process. By discouraging young people from going to university, we do not just harm the ambition of the individual, we harm the potential of the British economy.

Cameron repeatedly blames Labour for forcing him to take this action. But while he is cutting the state budget by an average of 11 per cent he has chosen to cut the higher education teaching budget by a whopping 80 per cent, asking our young directly to pick up for the stupidity and greed of financial sector. He has not been forced down this path. He has chosen to take it.

The position the Tories have taken on tuition fees is indefensible.

[thenodrog]

I can't argue with that at all. Quality over quality (and lower/no fees) is much more preferable to this system.

A couple of good articles on the BBC today about people being deterred from going to uni.

One was a guy who was in dead end jobs for years, decided to go to uni, got a first in computing and now runs a successful business. He has he never would have gone had fees been as expensive as they are now. People like that are going to be lost from our economy, he would have just stayed in his dead end, lowing paying job, instead of creating business.Medical students face £70k debt.

It's disgusting. The class divide will widen and the country will suffer.

On the other hand my son has a shed load of mates who have dropped out of various courses at university. It's life.

as for your next point... Nobody actually forces students to do medicine you know, it's something they strive to achieve to 'get on' in life in order to join the very middle classes that you seem to dislike so much. Medical students need not worry about a trifling 70k debt thats for sure after New Labour widened the class divide by massively rewarding making family Doctors and making them richer than Croesus. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267056/Family-GP-earning-500-000-fortune-thanks-new-style-contracts.html

btw...I will accept that anybody who drops out of Medical school might have financial problems but somebody else might view that as an incentive.

Stop with the emotive 'it's disgusting' stuff. It's not disgusting it's just part of the tough measures that both Brown and Cameron promised before the last election. Labour would be having to do all this if they had won and the Tories would be pretending outrage and you are swallowing it.

[thenodrog]

We live in a competitive globalised economic environment, and that competition is getting fiercer. If our economy is to survive, then we all have a stake in equipping today's youngsters with what they need to take the world on – and that is why higher education has, and should be funded predominantly by the taxpayer. GOOD GRIEF! IT WILL BE FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER! THATS PRECISELY WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT!..... ALBEIT THE TAXPAYER OF THE FUTURE.

By placing graduates into debt of up to £40,000, we are making them question the very point of education, AND THAT CAN ONLY BE A GOOD THING! and we limit their ambition in the process. I DOUBT IT WILL AFFECT THE ONES WITH REAL AMBITION.

[jim mk2]

Labour would be having to do all this if they had won and the Tories would be pretending outrage and you are swallowing it.

Labour's progamme of cuts would have halved the deficit in four years while not threatening the huge rise in unemployment and resulting social upheaval under the Tory plan. All parties acknowledge the need for cuts; it is the unnecessary speed and severity of the Tory cuts that is the issue.