[Closed] Tuition fees

if you ask me the police have come away today looking much worse what idiot drove them into a few hundred portestors!

Promises like that are essential as bargaining chips when forming the coalition policies. If you've not stuck your neck on the line for something, your "partners" will know that you can be easily shifted on it and it's then worth nowt.

I see that Ed Miliband was unwilling to pledge to reduce the costs if Labour ever get in again. Is that because he really knows its the right thing to do? Mind you, I don't recall the last Labour government overturning many of Maggies policies either, despite kicking up a stink when they were in opposition.

You should know it's much more complicated than that.

Erm, no, not "complicated" at all .........in fact Nick showed just how easy it is :

[img] [/img]

See ? .....you sign a pledge and let everybody see you do it .....just to make absolutely certain that there is no confusion at all where you stand.

There's no point in being so obstinate.......

It was Nick Clegg's idea to be "obstinate" on tuition fees. No one forced him.

caption contest.......
"whatever happens dont say let them eat cake"

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/04/labours-27-broken-manifesto-promises.html

druidh, I don't think you understand what a pledge is...........or at least you pretend that you don't understand.

We haven't even started looking at the LibDems broken promises yet....nuclear power, child detention, no immediate cuts, etc, etc.

That's a nice pin you're dancing on the head of.

The thing is with the Lib Dems, it's not just that they haven't done what they said they would, they are enthusiastically doing the exact opposite.

:tiifoilhaton:

if you ask me the police have come away today looking much worse what idiot drove them into a few hundred portestors!

They did it on purpose.

Okay ... haven't read all the threads but what if the gov't simply withdraw funding totally but then also not increase the fees nor dictate the fees structure? i.e. let the market forces do the work? What will happen?

[b]Education is not a right I am afraid ...[/b]

[b]Everyone wants to be the boss so who are doing the dirty work ehh? China? India?[/b]

And druidh yes New Labour were also a massive disappointment, your point is?

Molgrips - you cannot compromise on something you make a point of promising

If the situation demands it, then you have to. Government is not a war of principles, it's not a moral debate - it's about getting things done. Banging your fist on the table and shouting does not get anything done. Even Iain Paisley figured it out eventually.

The problem is that they should not make rash promises in the first place. Or at least word things appropriately. However that's not really practical. That photo of that pledge thing was a crass bit of electioneering. However, people won't vote for anyone speaking in practical terms, so they have to spout this nonsense to get votes. Consequently, everyone things all politicians are duplicitous scum when they often aren't. Being a politician is a no-win situation, so all you can do is get voted in and have a stab and doing a good job in terms of actually running the country.

I'm not in marketing, I'm a pragmatist.

Education is not a right I am afraid ...

It is, up to age 15. After that, it definitely should be a right.

That's a nice pin you're dancing on the head of.

Oh I see .......you think pointing out the difference between a pledge and a promise is mere 'pedantics' do you ? 😀

And yet strangely enough, Nick Clegg felt that it was extremely important to emphasise the fact that it was a [u][b]PLEDGE[/b][/u].

In fact, he signed it publicly and invited the press to photograph him doing so......have you seen the photo?

[img] [/img]<

Druidh - plenty of Tory U turns as well happening

Knife crime - pre election pledge for mandatory gaol sentences, post election - discretion for judges

NHS 24 - pledged to be scrapped - not happening.

None of these stand comparison with a publicly signed pledge on a single issue that was a major point on the campaign.

The lib demns are shown to have no integrity and face electoral oblivion quite rightly as a result

I've got the solution to the university funding problem.

If you appear on TV demonstrating an embarrassing level of spoken English, you can't go to university. Sorted.

molgrips - Member

It is, up to age 15. After that, it definitely should be a right.

Up to age 15 or 18 I agree but beyond that it's luxury (privilege) and not a right.

Therefore, it "should" be if those attending it see the value of it but I bet majority just see it as a way to become "bosses" to step on majority of the 3rd world maggots.

TandemJeremy - Member
Druidh - plenty of Tory U turns as well happening

Knife crime - pre election pledge for mandatory gaol sentences, post election - discretion for judges

NHS 24 - pledged to be scrapped - not happening.

Indeed. It's a feature of our political system.

None of these stand comparison with a publicly signed pledge on a single issue that was a major point on the campaign.

Says you (and ernie_lynch). You're merely arguing semantics here.

The lib demns are shown to have no integrity and face electoral oblivion quite rightly as a result

The other two major parties seem to have survived quite a while despite breaking all manner of promises.

Caption contest: "When I am king...."

can the damage done be charged to the student unions, why should the tax payer have to pay for the damage that students have caused,

kimbers - Member: if you ask me the police have come away today looking much worse what idiot drove them into a few hundred portestors!

Actually, I was cheering the TV when I saw footage of the police charging to drive back violent protesters. What do you expect the police to do when students are willing to occupy buildings illegally, cause vandalism and attack the police? Push them back with a playful nudge to the ribs? Ask them nicely? Not that realistic when snooker balls are being launched at your head now is it? But what happens when you charge? They move back. Job well done.

scraprider - Member

can the damage done be charged to the student unions, why should the tax payer have to pay for the damage that students have caused,

Damn right!

You're merely arguing semantics here. The other two major parties seem to have survived quite a while despite breaking all manner of promises.

Hardly semantics.

It has been become popular in recent years for politicians to make "pledges". Labour has been using the tactic quite extensively since the '97 election. In the 2005 election Labour made 6 pledges, and 5 in this last election.

The reason they have started using "pledges" is because they know that the electorate no longer believe and trust in promises. So they make a solemn and binding pledge which they guarantee will not be broken. Labour often, although not always, make the pledge deliberately vague, because they know that not keeping it is not an option. They are often in a hand written form and personally signed, just to emphasis the personal and serious commitment the politician concerned has to it.

The LibDems have now, as a result of not only not sticking to their pledge, but actually completely contradicting it, totally devalued the pledge in British politics. And have seriously undermined even further, people's trust to the political process and politicians.

When Nick Clegg first announced the formation of the coalition, he promised a "new kind" of politics.
We now know what he meant.

I guess this sort of sums up the LD's position:

Moral lesson: don’t make irresponsible promises in opposition. You might just find yourselves in power, and then where will you be? Faced with a lot of angry supporters who actually thought that you meant what you said.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100067665/the-passing-of-the-tuition-fees-bills-destroys-the-lib-dems-credibility/

Well, one of the UK's competitive advantages is its creatives industries - media graduates are needed for that.

And why is your line of thinking never extended to those most useful of subjects classics, art history, linguistics, music, politics etc?

Personally I'd quite happily extend the line of thinking to those subjects. It's not like anybody's complaining about the shortage of history graduates we have in this country is it?

Yes let's just produce a country of drones who have only been trained specifically to earn money in a particular field, and have no wider knowledge or understanding of the world. Woop.

I do think there should be less students though - I don't see why university shouldn't be for the academically talented.

Forgive me if I am wrong but did the Lib Dems not pledge to either:

Vote against if in opposition
or...
Not increase tuition fees of they won the election

As it happens neither is the case and are merely working within the somewhat unexpected landscape of coalition politics.

Can no one understand the somewhat awkward spot they have found themselves in? If the vote had failed it would have undermined the government and maybe even forced another general election. Is anyone surprised that they have behaved pragmatically rather than idealistically? Rather naive if you were.

As it is though, we can't afford to put 50% of our youth through media studies degrees. Bring back YTS!

I'm still at university and will not be affected by the fee rises, but fully support the new plans.

Increasing fees does not price people out of going to university at all, it makes people consider if borrowing so much money is actually of benefit to them in the future. Look at is as in investment; you borrow£9000 a year to develop/educate yourself, but only do it if you think/know you will easily earn it back once graduating. You are effectively investing in your future.

In my opinion there are too many degrees out there and people just go to uni for the "experience". Don't get me wrong, it is an experience, but people might now question if its worth £27,000 in fees + everything else you have to spend.

I once saw Boris Johnson give a speech when he was Shadow Education secretary or some such. Apparently media studies has destinations stats way above the average degree!

The reason they have started using "pledges" is because they know that the electorate no longer believe and trust in promises

Next stop: Solemn vows? Oaths? What are the politicians going to do when they run out of synonyms for "promise"?

Not if you solemnly promise to do something then you do not compromise on it. By doing so you show your lack of integrity.

They are politicians for FFS? You'd have to be either naive or stupid to be surprised by something like this, especially from the LibDems who've already demonstrated they'll do anything for a sniff of power.

The problem that the LibDems have is one shared by other small parties - they can propose financially unimplementable manifestos in the knowledge that it'll win them some votes but they'll never actually have to make them work. Here however, the LibDems are in a situation where things do have to be implemented and therefore for once they're having to get involved in making some hard choices - not something they're really set up for.

Mrh, your argument means that people would only do degrees that result in large financial rewards, to cover the now massive cost of getting one. Hardly the best incentive for encouraging further learning and the betterment of knowledge is it?

I'd rather see university education being free, same as it was when I was there. In order to do that however I suspect it'd be necessary to step back from this idea of having 50% of school leavers going to uni - as I expect that's a huge increase in numbers (and therefore cost) by comparison with when I went (mid to late 80's).

After I left uni and had been working for a few years we actually tended to prefer to take people who'd been educated in the tech colleges rather than in university as they appeared to us to be better prepared for work.

Francis Bacon will be turning in his grave.

...as they appeared to us to be better prepared for work.

But less educated. University is not a boiler house to produce people "better prepared" for employers. Have any of us any idea what it will be like without an educated population?

edsbike - Member

Does that include transferring to the £9,000 fees as well?

Maybe everyone who agrees with this rise could have their fees retrospectively raised, you know, just to show they really believe it's the fairest system.

yes please!

i will never clear my debt, i don't care how much i owe - it's irrelevant.

however, the new repayment system would make me £50/month better off right now, and the debt would be cancelled sooner. which would make me ... about £130/month better off for ... the last 12 years.

giving me an estimate ISA fund of ... about £60,000* by the time i'm 65.

this new system would make me £60,000* better off. and i'm not a low earner - they'll get even more.

the new system is brilliant. - not perfect, but heaps better than the last one.

(*about £30,000 assuming zero growth)

I think the news about climbing the cenotaph and attacking Prince Charles and Camilla's car is outrageous... however...

I just have one question relating to tuition fees (and it's a genuine question, I don't already know the answer and I'm not being facetious) - is £9,000 a fair cost of tuition?

When you take into account all the lecturers salaries/support staff salaries/admin costs/insurances/books/facilities/technology/etc that a student uses during the average year at University, is £9,000 a fair cost? Is the cost higher than that? or lower?

I have been to University and view it as a privilege and not a right as some people are saying it is. As far as I know Universities are not owned by the Government or local authorities like schools are so why should the Government support them. I feel the same way about the banks that the Government 'bailed' out. If my company was going under would the Government help - I doubt it! So why should a private organisation like a University be supported and aided to the extent that they are being currently.

If it's a fair price and you want to go to University - then that is the price you have to pay. Deal with it. Further and Higher Education is a commodity just like anything else you pay for, you wouldn't expect the Government to pay 90% of the cost of your car when you buy it would you? or pay for the labour on a bathroom when you get that fitted?

And as for the vandalism and rioting that they have resorted to to get their point across - I think a lot of the protesters have lost sight of the goal they are trying to achieve. They are supposed to be protesting against something, how exactly are you demonstrating that by climbing on the cenotaph - a memorial to all those who died in the Great War. Mindless vandalism and criminal damage have no place in a protest and I have no sympathy for anyone who does such a thing.

OK rant over. Actually, it's less of a rant and more of a public outing of my feelings about what's been going on. Thank you for listening.

The reason they have started using "pledges" is because they know that the electorate no longer believe and trust in promises. [b]So they make a solemn and binding pledge which they guarantee will not be broken. Labour often, although not always, make the pledge deliberately vague, because they know that not keeping it is not an option. [/b]They are often in a hand written form and personally signed, just to emphasis the personal and serious commitment the politician concerned has to it.

[b]The LibDems have now, as a result of not only not sticking to their pledge, but actually completely contradicting it, totally devalued the pledge in British politics[/b]. And have seriously undermined even further, people's trust to the political process and politicians.

If only that were true Ernie - however lets not try and let your anti coalition hyperbole get in the way of a good story...

In the court case brought against him for breach of contract over a referendum on the EU Constitution, Gordon Brown's personal barrister told the court that [b]"manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation".[/b]

Get that!

In a court of law!

So, who devalued Pledges? Yep, your mate Gordon the moron, who lied to the electorate when he pledged us a referendum on the EU constitution!

Could Big Society be somehow harnessed to fund third level education? You know, like how the lifeboats are run?

Have any of us any idea what it will be like without an educated population?

My word! Can you actually be any more patronising to people without degrees?! The population should be provided with sufficient education via the state school system and not necessarily have to go to university to compensate.

Maybe the students should be less self serving and if they're so concerned about the level of free education for the masses then they should take up the mantle of improving state school education which truly would benefit the masses.

 

But less educated. University is not a boiler house to produce people "better prepared" for employers.

I think you might just have made the case for the increase in tuition fees right there...

I've always tended towards the pragmatic so when I made my education choices I did them with a consideration about career prospects in mind. If I'd have a big chunk of debt to pay back then I'd been ever more mindful - however given the tax I've paid over the years since I reckon the state has had a good return from investing in my education!

I'm not really up on all this, anyone help me out?
If the unis were only allowed to charge £X before the new proposals, how did they operate? Were they profitable/self sustainable?
Or did they receive govt subsidies so that people could go to university?
Honest question.

My word! Can you actually be any more patronising to people without degrees?! The population should be provided with sufficient education via the state school system and not necessarily have to go to university to compensate.

Utter bollocks. But I reckon once you read back over it, you'll realise that. Of course I could be more patronising, because I wasn't being patronising at all. Where will we get our teachers without arts and humanities degrees? Where will our writers, journalists, philosophers come from? Where will you get your lawyers from? Straight from 6th form?

We'll get em from Poland 🙂

Torminalis - Member

Forgive me if I am wrong but did the Lib Dems not pledge to either:

Vote against if in opposition
or...
Not increase tuition fees of they won the election

Nope - the pledge is quite clear.

[img] [/img]
I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament.

I think you might just have made the case for the increase in tuition fees right there...

I've always tended towards the pragmatic so when I made my education choices I did them with a consideration about career prospects in mind.

Thankfully, not everyone thinks like this. Coming from a background where I went to University with this in mind, and now don't use my degree at all, I'd rather have done something "less useful".

Torminalis - Member

Forgive me if I am wrong but did the Lib Dems not pledge to either:

Vote against if in opposition
or...
Not increase tuition fees of they won the election

You are wrong, and since the full details of the pledge has been posted on here several times, I really don't think you deserve to be forgiven. Have another look at the pledge :

[img] [/img]<

See ? ........no mention of winning or losing election, just very plain speaking words about pledging to vote against ANY increases in the next parliament and also pledging to find an [u]ALTERNATIVE.[/u]

As for those who cynically dismiss he importance of a pledge, it's probably worth remembering that two former leaders of the Liberal Democratic Party totally agree with me that a pledge is solemn and binding and therefore should not be broken.

Former LibDem leaders Charles Kennedy and Menzies Campbell both signed [i]exactly[/i] the same pledge as Nick Clegg. But they don't see any "get out clause" about "[i]voting against if in opposition or not increasing tuition fees if they won the election[/i]" or any other such bollox.

There is little doubt that Kennedy and Campbell would have voted in favour of the increases had they not made the pledge - they repeated pointed out that they had no choice but to oppose because of the pledge. Exactly the same rules, because of exactly the same circumstances, applies to Nick Clegg.

[i]"Walking through fire"[/i] my arse ......you're just full of crap mate ...... and a particularly worthless politician.