More student protests

[kalniel]

Doesn't seem to be a problem for the government to magic £7bn out of thin air. Or perhaps consider the Robin Hood tax?
How about we get some of that £750bn bailout money back off the banks who (IIRC) are due to paying out billions in 'performance' bonuses at the end of the year.

The consequences of not doing any of those are rather more severe than the face cost of the actions. The same is not the case for tuition fee increases.

From my experiences on campus, students are angry because these proposals are likely to turn higher education into a system where only the rich and a tiny percentage of the academically gifted can actually study for a degree.

I don't think they are likely to do that to be honest.

[format]

The consequences of not doing any of those are rather more severe than the face cost of the actions. The same is not the case for tuition fee increases.

I don't think they are likely to do that to be honest.

The consequences of 'not doing' the RH tax, or asking the banks to contribute return some of their cash to the public purse?
I accept that the Irish bailout could be considered necessary, but it sort of shoots a hole in the theory that 'there is no money left'.

[kalniel]

The consequences of 'not doing' the RH tax, or asking the banks to contribute return some of their cash to the public purse?
I accept that the Irish bailout could be considered necessary, but it sort of shoots a hole in the theory that 'there is no money left'.

The consequences of not doing a bailout for either the banks or Irish. A Robin Hood tax wouldn't raise significant additional funds over any negative connotations.

There's never such a thing as 'no money left', it's simply how much extra you will pay later to get the money now. If the return (either directly or in avoiding negative consequences) is high enough then you clearly have justification to access more funds now. If not, then it's as good as 'no money left'.

Students face the same decision - are they willing to pay later in order to get expensive further education now? If so then they can choose to go to university. If not then they can choose not to. There's no current right to go to university and with far less than 50% of people going, it's clear that it's not a necessity either. (Not that I don't think more people should be going)

[format]

The consequences of not doing a bailout for either the banks or Irish. A Robin Hood tax wouldn't raise significant additional funds over any negative connotations.

There's never such a thing as 'no money left', it's simply how much extra you will pay later to get the money now. If the return (either directly or in avoiding negative consequences) is high enough then you clearly have justification to access more funds now. If not, then it's as good as 'no money left'.

Students face the same decision - are they willing to pay later in order to get expensive further education now? If so then they can choose to go to university. If not then they can choose not to. There's no current right to go to university and with far less than 50% of people going, it's clear that it's not a necessity either. (Not that I don't think more people should be going)

The banks bailout is done. What I'm asking for is they contribute some of their profit/bonuses back the taxpayer.

[Saracen]

Doesn't seem to be a problem for the government to magic £7bn out of thin air. Or perhaps consider the Robin Hood tax?
How about we get some of that £750bn bailout money back off the banks who (IIRC) are due to paying out billions in 'performance' bonuses at the end of the year.
....

I understand where you're coming from with both those points but, the devil is in the detail.

Consider the Irish £7 billion bail out a different way. Current UK ten-year bond yields (last time I looked, source: Bloomberg) was 3.33%, while the Irish rate was 8.09%.

If the UK government borrows £7 billion at 3.33% and lent it to the Irish at, say, 7%, then what the transaction really says is that the UK government received a 3.67% turn for accepting the relatively nominal risk that the Irish state will default on the loan.

If you think about it, this is pretty much exactly the same deal that the Chinese have been offering the UK for years. Ireland is a very important export market in the UK, and several major British banks are significantly exposed to the risk of Irish banks going down. We therefore have a very clear national interest in ensuring, if we can, that those Irish banks don't fail, and that the Irish market can still take our exports.

It's very tempting to look at that loan as being something we can "magic out of thin air", and I'm sure the government would like to make it out to be helping a friend in need, but in reality, the UK will be making money from financing the Irish to do something we need them to do anyway. Just like China has been doing with the UK. Being on the other end of that transaction is partly how we got into our current mess.

As for the £750 billion bailout of the banks, I'd make two points. First, even ex-Chancellor Alistair Darling claimed a few days ago (Andrew Marr show, I think) that he expected the nation to make a profit on that bailout, in the end. Most of it went to the banks in the form of share capital, and he expects the taxpayer to make a profit on that, when those shares are eventually sold. Second, while bailing out the banks cost a lot of money, not bailing them out would very likely have cost an awful lot more.

Also, in relation to that bailout, it's done now. We are where we are. Even if, with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, we decided that the bailout was wrong and should never have been done, the simple fact is ... it was done. It's simply pointless to consider irrevocable past decisions when determining current policy. If we're going to utilise that 20:20 hindsight, rather than wringing our hands about £750 billion bank bailout, it would make far more sense to redress some of the decisions made much earlier that led to the situation where the bank bailout was necessary in the first place.

I know how it appears, format, but not only are those two situations very different, but neither has a direct bearing on what we should be doing about university funding and student fees.

There is still a major question about banks, though. It's not about punishing miscreant bankers, whether they earn, or rather are paid, large bonuses are not. The real question facing governments over bankers, is to get the balance right between ensuring banking activity can never drop us in the bucolic again, while not killing the golden goose that lays all those wonderful tax revenue eggs. I don't have much confidence in them being able to do that.

[Saracen]

....

It's not just about that. I think the case is actually that most current students wouldn't be effected by this because their fees are paid under the current systems.
From my experiences on campus, students are angry because these proposals are likely to turn higher education into a system where only the rich and a tiny percentage of the academically gifted can actually study for a degree.

But it won't, will it? Nobody will be paying up front. If the government had said fees were £9000/year and if you can't pay up front, tough luck, then I could agree with the protests. But funding will be there, and students only pay back once they earn a reasonable wage, and a lot more than many of the taxpayers funding them earn right now.

Is the notion of that debt daunting? Sure, it is. But maybe that will focus student's minds on whether they really want to go to uni at all, which is no bad thing seeing as the taxpayer is still funding unis. Uni should not be an easy option, but a serious decision.

As I said earlier, the sheer fact of the matter is that money is tight, and wishing it wasn't won't change things. The other fact is that vastly more people have the chance to go. Every time I hear students bleating about how those that went to university "free" in past years, it makes me fume, because under that system, about 8 out of 9 current students wouldn't have had the chance to go, period.

Rarely in life will anyone get a truly free lunch. A uni place is no exception and it's about time students woke up and realised it.

It's really simple. Money has to come from somewhere, and admittedly through no fault of theirs, the ones this affects have the misfortune to have timed their birth badly enough to arrive at the Uni station just in time to see the gravy train departing. It might not be fair, but it is the situation, and protests aren't going to change the deficit, let alone the national debt.

As I said, it may not be fair but it's cold, hard reality and the sooner protesting students grow up and realise the situation, the sooner they'll realise they have a choice .... accept that going to uni is going to cost more than it used to, and either it's worth it to them, or it isn't.

The situation of the national finances is simply the reality we all now face, and students need to face up to it too. It's a bit like crying over spilt milk - it makes you look a bit daft and pathetic, and it doesn't un-spill the milk.

[kalniel]

The banks bailout is done. What I'm asking for is they contribute some of their profit/bonuses back the taxpayer.

They are. Taxpayers are shareholders. The bigger the profit the better the dividend we'll get.

[Kata]

They are. Taxpayers are shareholders. The bigger the profit the better the dividend we'll get.

Let me know when we start seeing any reduced taxes from that...

[kalniel]

Let me know when we start seeing any reduced taxes from that...

Reduced compared to what we current pay, or reduced compared to what we might otherwise pay?

[Kata]

Either, frankly. Government appears to be a one-way ratchet, set to extract ever more of our money while slowly reducing the quality or frequency of the services it offers.

The only possible solution to the problem of government (and I do regard it, as it currently performs, as a problem!) is a massive increase in efficiency. The new lot seem to be making a go of it, certainly far more than Labour ever would have; but, I still can't see it being enough...

[Saracen]

Either, frankly. Government appears to be a one-way ratchet, set to extract ever more of our money while slowly reducing the quality or frequency of the services it offers.

The only possible solution to the problem of government (and I do regard it, as it currently performs, as a problem!) is a massive increase in efficiency. The new lot seem to be making a go of it, certainly far more than Labour ever would have; but, I still can't see it being enough...

I can't see it being enough either.

It's going to come, sooner or later and one way or another, to deciding whether government should do some things at all, let alone doing them efficiently. And it might come to thinking the unthinkable. For instance, is a huge, monolithic NHS the best way of providing health care? I'm not saying it isn't, but that perhaps we ought, given how much it costs, to at least be thinking about alternatives.

[Phage]

We have had a similar conversation in other threads. I ended up being being abused by Santa for suggesting that a two-tier system would work as per Medicare in Aus. Quite unpleasant.

[kalniel]

For instance, is a huge, monolithic NHS the best way of providing health care? I'm not saying it isn't, but that perhaps we ought, given how much it costs, to at least be thinking about alternatives.

:/

Problem is I just don't trust the tories to handle that one at all well. Not saying anyone else is better, but they royally screwed up some other previously national institutions.

Do we need a third way? Something in-between monolithic and private? Yes, but I'm not so sure we weren't already moving in that direction under labour - PCTs were becoming more regional/independent. PPPs came into existence etc. We've got to be careful of bashing or even undoing stuff just because the opposition started it.