Goverment 1 - 0 Students

[Saracen]

But the aim of a party is to govern. Cynical yes, but then given the run up to this election it was clear that there was a three way split between the parties, if not putting the LibDems in the pound seats of support for a time (not to mention the likely hood of them becoming the king-makers) - a good position for a party that doesn't expect to be in a position of power, i would say.

Edit: I believe the LibDem comment was 'the only pledge I'm making is that I'm never making a pledge again'.

True, there was a three-way split to some extent, and true, the LDs got as huge boost from the TV debates .... but exactly when did they sign those tuition fee pledges in relation to all that?

But even so, even with a more even split of votes, the system still loads things firmly against the LDs. Compare their percentage of the national vote to their percentage of MPs elected, and then do it for Labour and Tory. One argument is that lots of people won't vote LD because they don't believe they can win, and they can't win because that perception prevents them getting over the line in far too many seats under first-past-the-post. After all, hypothetically, if in every constituency one party (say, Tory) got 1 vote more than Labour, who got 1 vote more than the LDs, the vote would be a dead three-way heat within the bounds of statistical confidence, but the Commons would be 100% Tory.

Given that, it's hard to see how they could have predicted the eventual outcome even though I'm sure they considered it a statistical possibility, and I'd bet they thought the likelihood of ending up in coalition with the Tories, of all people, as about as likely as finding a pot of rocking horse poop at the end of a rainbow, guarded by the tooth fairy.

[Kumagoro]

I think a big problem is that its being put through so quickly. How could anyone have planed for
the massive rise in fees. They should bring it in more slowly over at least a period of 5 years
minimum. There also needs to be a big increase in scholarships, as we have barely any compared
to some other countries who have high fees.

[directhex]

I think a big problem is that its being put through so quickly. How could anyone have planed for
the massive rise in fees. They should bring it in more slowly over at least a period of 5 years
minimum. There also needs to be a big increase in scholarships, as we have barely any compared
to some other countries who have high fees.

According to leaked emails, the NUS were trying the reverse, as a counter-proposal to fees increases: axe the pot of money for low-income students by over 60% to fund the shortfall in finding for everyone else (i.e. keep fees at their current levels, but remove the poorest from being able to attend uni)

[petercook7]

So why havent MPs given themselves a pay cut? why are the lords geting £300 a day in expenses? why are dukes being given millions to do up their homes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV5SX...ayer_embedded#!

[Saracen]

I think a big problem is that its being put through so quickly. How could anyone have planed for
the massive rise in fees. They should bring it in more slowly over at least a period of 5 years
minimum. There also needs to be a big increase in scholarships, as we have barely any compared
to some other countries who have high fees.

More slowly? You're kidding, right?

First, the coalition have been on about it for months. Second, this is all based on the Browne report which was commissioned by Labour, not the coalition, and that was in preparation for some considerable time (Nov 2009, IIRC). And third, it doesn't start for another two years anyway - it kicks in in the academic year starting in 2012.

Then, there's a lot of hype and exaggeration going on about what's proposed. All this "tripling" simply isn't true, for a start. Currently, the fees are capped at £3290, and the primary proposal is to raise that to £6000. That's not even doubling, let alone tripling. And the cases where uni's can charge up to £9000, which still isn't tripling the fees, are subject to a whole lot of provisos and "access agreements" negotiated with OFFA, and that option also comes with a commitment to extra funding for the uni for students from the poorest background.

Then, it's not like students have to plan for this to make provision for getting the money in place. The government pays all the fees, and the student only starts paying for it after graduation (so that kicks it out to the end of 2015 at the earliest), and even then, only if their income exceeds the threshold level (currently set, in these proposals, to £21,000). And even then, you only pay on the income exceeding that threshold, so it's a percentage of income over £21,000, so someone earning £22,000 pays on that £1000 excess over £21000.

So given that anyone looking at it now isn't going to be facing paying anything until they've graduated in summer 2015 at the earliest, they've actually got the 5 years you want anyway.

Oh, and as the threshold has gone up from the current (Labour) threshold of £15,000, you've got to be earning a lot more than at the moment before you start paying back anyway, and there is extra funding for the poorest students, including maintenance grants going up from £2,906 to £3,250 (12% increase, at a time when most departments are being cut by 20% or more) for students from homes with incomes of under £25,000, while at the same time, access to partial grants is being restricted to homes with incomes of £42,000 instead of the current £50,000.

[Cozwin]

I think the point made by some of people taking more worthwhile courses is interesting, but what courses would you class as important/worthwhile.

I mean i have heard people say Maths, English, History, Science.

I personally do History... honestly i do not see what i contribute to Society as i have no intention of teaching history or becoming a historian as profession, this is matched with most people on my course.

I do think there is too many people doing media courses and such that can be a waste. As well as too many people going to Uni for asylum and such (heard a guy in the English and History department last week, couldnt string a sentence together but was trying to sign up for English Degree only about 5 months too late, and he let it slip it was for asylum to which the woman at the desk told him there was no places and asked him to leave.

[oolon]

I personally do History... honestly i do not see what i contribute to Society as i have no intention of teaching history or becoming a historian as profession, this is matched with most people on my course.

Do you however feel that the state should be paying for this education which you acknowledge is of no value to you or the country? Or do you feel you should be funding this hobby/general interest you have in history?

[kalniel]

But (surely) the manifesto is their plan of how they will act in your best interests?

I'm just suggesting that you wouldn't have to get into the administration to know the writing was on the wall for the finances yet they still paraded around their traditional, free-university tagline.

Sorry, but it's just ridiculous. They said "we will vote against any fee increases", and then when they arrived in government said "unbeknownst to us, it would appear that we're in the middle of a recession and don't have much money".

Wow! Never saw that one coming!

Read my post again I suggested that if they had been elected in control of govt. then they would have rearranged the budget to allow enough funding for universities and not have to raise fees. That they have no/little control over the rest of the budget is what ties their hands. It is a little silly but they have each had to decide to act in agreement with their pledge, or in the best interests of the people they represent in the constituency that elected them.. it is a consequence of the conservative majority that those two things probably don't agree.

I think the point made by some of people taking more worthwhile courses is interesting, but what courses would you class as important/worthwhile.

I mean i have heard people say Maths, English, History, Science.

I personally do History... honestly i do not see what i contribute to Society as i have no intention of teaching history or becoming a historian as profession, this is matched with most people on my course.

I do think there is too many people doing media courses and such that can be a waste. As well as too many people going to Uni for asylum and such (heard a guy in the English and History department last week, couldnt string a sentence together but was trying to sign up for English Degree only about 5 months too late, and he let it slip it was for asylum to which the woman at the desk told him there was no places and asked him to leave.

The point I made last time this came up was that the process of attending university, studying for exams/coursework and general life development of spending three years mingling with people of different backgrounds who aren't from your local area is of positive benefit to both society and the economy, regardless of whether you study for a vocational degree or not.

[danroyle]

I'm sorry you turn up at a protest with your face covered and home-made riot shields you lose any credibility in my opinion

+1

No sympathy at all now.
I did initially feel a little sorry for students but not now The ignorant FEW that decided to riot have tarnished the many that didn't.

[Spud1]

I'm pleased with the result, common sense prevailed in the end (so far anyway, we've yet to see how the proposals will be watered down over the next few months) and the initial proposals have gotten through.

I'm still yet to hear a single student in the media or anywhere else for that matter come up with a reasoned, fully qualified argument against the rises. All I hear are either:

1) "This will prevent people going to university!!" - Well, no, it won't. It actually makes it easier due to how the fees are initially funded. It may help to deter people from going, but then thats a good thing..too many people go to university already.

2) "This will make it pointless to go to uni as it will cost me too much!" - Well no,again. Under the new proposals it will actually cost you /less/ in real terms, month on month than it would at the moment. So in reality you will be better off after graduating..

3) "I don't want to pay for my degree! It's just not fair!" - Tough, life isn't fair, we're all making sacrifices to pay for the mistakes of the past, and to be honest that is how it has always been in one way or another. In some cases people paid through war, through poverty, through losing their house, and now - paying for your higher education over a prolonged period of time. Not the worst thing in the world eh.

4) "People from poor backgrounds can't afford to go anymore!" - no - see point 1. It's easier for them.

5) "The liberals have broken their promises!" - Again no - they didn't get into power, didn't win the election..get over it and stop blaming them for doing the right thing. Just imagine how much worse it would have been if they had not gone into a coalition with the tories..

It's an issue that really winds me up and almost has me shouting at the TV when these selfish students appear wining about the fees - if anything, this just shows why most of them shouldn't be going to university, if they can't understand an issue like this then they are exactly the people who should not be going in the first place!

[Terbinator]

Read my post again I suggested that if they had been elected in control of govt. then they would have rearranged the budget to allow enough funding for universities and not have to raise fees. That they have no/little control over the rest of the budget is what ties their hands. ...

I understand what you were getting at, but i still don't buy it (from them). As I've posted up above, i do doubt whether they would of scrapped or at least reduce fee's at all - regardless of what moneys left after they've sorted everything else by virtue of there being none.

[kalniel]

I understand what you were getting at, but i still don't buy it (from them). As I've posted up above, i do doubt whether they would of scrapped or at least reduce fee's at all - regardless of what moneys left after they've sorted everything else by virtue of there being none.

Well I think very few people take the Lib Dem's budget plans seriously (probably for good reason), which is one of the reasons they do so badly all the time. I think the general plan was to raise funds via more taxation of the rich and businesses type thing. They've gone very left in recent years.

[usxhe190]

Can someone give me an example for the fee increases and the increased in thresholds to pay back those fees?

[kalniel]

Can someone give me an example for the fee increases and the increased in thresholds to pay back those fees?

Saracen already did I think? In 2012 fees go up to a maximum of 9k per year, and the threshold is 21k earning, increasing each year in line with inflation.

[Fraz]

I'm still yet to hear a single student in the media or anywhere else for that matter come up with a reasoned, fully qualified argument against the rises.

I can give you one, at least.

These fee increases are being put through because our country is in a lot of debt and needs to conserve money. Fine, I think we're all in agreement that this is necessary. I think we can also agree that we need to make headway on our nation's deficit sooner rather than later, so let's say within the next 5 years or so.

So... how is loaning a bunch of students £9000 a year going to help us exactly? It's doubtful that they'll pay it back anytime soon, so this is nothing more than an accounts trick to move some money from one set of books to another. It's a complete short-term money-saving fail. Utterly pointless, unless we see a really dramatic reduction in the number of students next year, which would be really bad in many ways (probably bankrupt many existing universities, and I don't just mean the bad ones).

Admittedly, in about 10 years time this hike in fees will save the country some money, but are we even going to need it then?

I also admit, there are probably too many people in higher-education, and it is getting too expensive to support them all, but surely there are ways and means of reducing these numbers rather than putting the financial burden onto the students, and thus discouraging *everyone* except the rich elite.

Personally, I'm pretty disgusted. It's a complete fail for most universities as well. From what I hear at Bristol University, we'll have to charge students at least £8000 a year just to break even, and yet it's going to be difficult for Bristol to charge that much from what I hear of the requirements so far. No doubt the details still need to be hammered out, so we'll see I guess.

[Terbinator]

So... how is loaning a bunch of students £9000 a year going to help us exactly? It's doubtful that they'll pay it back anytime soon, so this is nothing more than an accounts trick to move some money from one set of books to another.

This. The only way I've ever viewed, and in a nutshell it is, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Edit: @ Spud, do you really think the HoL are going to do anything more than 'rubber-stamp' this?