Bucks MPs will vote for 'vital' tuition fees rise (From Bucks Free Press)

RAISING tuition fees is “a vital part of building a better future”, Wycombe MP Steve Baker has told students, ahead of Thursday's vote in the House of Commons.

THE JUDGE CONSIDERS THIS RUBBISH.
THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS BECAUSE BRITAIN IS BROKEN.
WE ARE BANKRUPTED BY CORRUPTED BANKERS WHO HAS DISMANTLED OUR HARD EARNED FREEDOMS IN THE NAME OF GREED.
CHECK OUT ANY BANKERS MANSION AND YOU WILL FIND SEVERAL MERCS, A COUPLE OF ITALIAN SPORTS COUPES AND HE WILL SHOW YOU HIS COLLECTION OF ART BEFORE LOOKING AT HIS HUBLET AND TELL YOU ITS TIME FOR YOU TO GO BACK TO YOUR FORD KA AND DRIVE BACK TO YOUR ONE BEDROOMED DAMP AND DINGY COUNCIL FLAT WHICH HAS BEEN CONDEMNED BUT CANNOT BE BULL-DOZED CAUSE THE COUNCIL CANT OFF-LOAD IT TO A "NOT FOR PROFIT" HOUSING ASSOCIATION.
JUDGE

The Judge wrote:
RAISING tuition fees is “a vital part of building a better future”, Wycombe MP Steve Baker has told students, ahead of Thursday's vote in the House of Commons. THE JUDGE CONSIDERS THIS RUBBISH. THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS BECAUSE BRITAIN IS BROKEN. WE ARE BANKRUPTED BY CORRUPTED BANKERS WHO HAS DISMANTLED OUR HARD EARNED FREEDOMS IN THE NAME OF GREED. CHECK OUT ANY BANKERS MANSION AND YOU WILL FIND SEVERAL MERCS, A COUPLE OF ITALIAN SPORTS COUPES AND HE WILL SHOW YOU HIS COLLECTION OF ART BEFORE LOOKING AT HIS HUBLET AND TELL YOU ITS TIME FOR YOU TO GO BACK TO YOUR FORD KA AND DRIVE BACK TO YOUR ONE BEDROOMED DAMP AND DINGY COUNCIL FLAT WHICH HAS BEEN CONDEMNED BUT CANNOT BE BULL-DOZED CAUSE THE COUNCIL CANT OFF-LOAD IT TO A "NOT FOR PROFIT" HOUSING ASSOCIATION. JUDGE

The Judge is right: it was unregulated private - sector greed on behalf of the banks which has created this financial shortfall. Now it`s the young and the already-struggling who are being forced to cover for them, under a government which is far more interested in pushing Thatcherite-style ideology than actually addressing the real issues. The previous government weren`t up to much, but they were angels compared to this lot.

dtap wrote:

The Judge wrote:
RAISING tuition fees is “a vital part of building a better future”, Wycombe MP Steve Baker has told students, ahead of Thursday's vote in the House of Commons. THE JUDGE CONSIDERS THIS RUBBISH. THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS BECAUSE BRITAIN IS BROKEN. WE ARE BANKRUPTED BY CORRUPTED BANKERS WHO HAS DISMANTLED OUR HARD EARNED FREEDOMS IN THE NAME OF GREED. CHECK OUT ANY BANKERS MANSION AND YOU WILL FIND SEVERAL MERCS, A COUPLE OF ITALIAN SPORTS COUPES AND HE WILL SHOW YOU HIS COLLECTION OF ART BEFORE LOOKING AT HIS HUBLET AND TELL YOU ITS TIME FOR YOU TO GO BACK TO YOUR FORD KA AND DRIVE BACK TO YOUR ONE BEDROOMED DAMP AND DINGY COUNCIL FLAT WHICH HAS BEEN CONDEMNED BUT CANNOT BE BULL-DOZED CAUSE THE COUNCIL CANT OFF-LOAD IT TO A "NOT FOR PROFIT" HOUSING ASSOCIATION. JUDGE

The Judge is right: it was unregulated private - sector greed on behalf of the banks which has created this financial shortfall. Now it`s the young and the already-struggling who are being forced to cover for them, under a government which is far more interested in pushing Thatcherite-style ideology than actually addressing the real issues. The previous government weren`t up to much, but they were angels compared to this lot.

WOW YOU ARE ON THE MONEY.
PRECISELY. DID YOU SEE GORDY ON THE TELLY TRYING TO FLOGG HIS MEMOIRS?
WHAT A SMUG GIT AND THAT AWKWARD SQUIRMY SMILE SUGGESTING THAT I WAS RIGHT TO DE-REGULATE AND ENCOURAGE SPENDING BY DE-REGULATION OF THE FINANCIAL MARKETS WHEN HE WAS ALLOWED INTO A JOB THAT HE QUITE SIMPLY COULD NOT CARRY OUT DUE TO INEPTITUDE.
THE MAN HAS SINGLE-HANDEDLY DESTROYED THIS COUNTRY WITH THE HELP OF HIS BANKER FRIENDS.
NEXT THING IS HE WILL GIVE THE PROCEEDS OF THIS "NOVEL" TO SOME WORLDY CAUSE TO SELF-INGRATIATE HIMSELF.
BROWN SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HIMSELF AND CASTIGATED INTO THE WILDERNESS FROM HENCE HE CAME...
JUDGE

The Judge wrote:

dtap wrote:

The Judge wrote:
RAISING tuition fees is “a vital part of building a better future”, Wycombe MP Steve Baker has told students, ahead of Thursday's vote in the House of Commons. THE JUDGE CONSIDERS THIS RUBBISH. THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS BECAUSE BRITAIN IS BROKEN. WE ARE BANKRUPTED BY CORRUPTED BANKERS WHO HAS DISMANTLED OUR HARD EARNED FREEDOMS IN THE NAME OF GREED. CHECK OUT ANY BANKERS MANSION AND YOU WILL FIND SEVERAL MERCS, A COUPLE OF ITALIAN SPORTS COUPES AND HE WILL SHOW YOU HIS COLLECTION OF ART BEFORE LOOKING AT HIS HUBLET AND TELL YOU ITS TIME FOR YOU TO GO BACK TO YOUR FORD KA AND DRIVE BACK TO YOUR ONE BEDROOMED DAMP AND DINGY COUNCIL FLAT WHICH HAS BEEN CONDEMNED BUT CANNOT BE BULL-DOZED CAUSE THE COUNCIL CANT OFF-LOAD IT TO A "NOT FOR PROFIT" HOUSING ASSOCIATION. JUDGE

The Judge is right: it was unregulated private - sector greed on behalf of the banks which has created this financial shortfall. Now it`s the young and the already-struggling who are being forced to cover for them, under a government which is far more interested in pushing Thatcherite-style ideology than actually addressing the real issues. The previous government weren`t up to much, but they were angels compared to this lot.

WOW YOU ARE ON THE MONEY.
PRECISELY. DID YOU SEE GORDY ON THE TELLY TRYING TO FLOGG HIS MEMOIRS?
WHAT A SMUG GIT AND THAT AWKWARD SQUIRMY SMILE SUGGESTING THAT I WAS RIGHT TO DE-REGULATE AND ENCOURAGE SPENDING BY DE-REGULATION OF THE FINANCIAL MARKETS WHEN HE WAS ALLOWED INTO A JOB THAT HE QUITE SIMPLY COULD NOT CARRY OUT DUE TO INEPTITUDE.
THE MAN HAS SINGLE-HANDEDLY DESTROYED THIS COUNTRY WITH THE HELP OF HIS BANKER FRIENDS.
NEXT THING IS HE WILL GIVE THE PROCEEDS OF THIS "NOVEL" TO SOME WORLDY CAUSE TO SELF-INGRATIATE HIMSELF.
BROWN SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HIMSELF AND CASTIGATED INTO THE WILDERNESS FROM HENCE HE CAME...
JUDGE

AND AS FOR THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS..... HOW CAN THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT.... I ONCE THOUGHT CABLE A WISE AND CLEVER MAN NOW IT SEEMS EVEN THE JUDGE CAN BE DECEIVED......
WHAT DID THE MANIFESTO STATE?
THEY SHOULD ALL LOSE THEIR SEATS AT THE NEXT ELECTION.....YOU ALL KNOW WHAT TO DO IN THIS FREE AND DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY....

You have spoken to a single student Steve - stop lying! I know full well that you have over 300 emails in you inbox from students of the local university - I have seen the reply that Tim your researcher is sending out! WHAT A COP-OUT!

Do not make out that you have talked at length about this issue!

Its nice to see that you are truly a representative of this constituency.

I WOULD ADVISE ALL STUDENTS TO BOYCOTT UNIVERSITY.
SIMPLY DONT TURN UP BUT SIGN ON INSTEAD..... INCLUDING THE RICH ONES..... LETS GET A CAMPAIGN GOING..... £9000 A TERM IS CRIMINAL.
£50,000 DEBT WILL NEVER BE PAID OFF - THERE ARE NOT JOBS FOR THE CURRENT RAFT OF STUDENTS....LET ALONE THOSE FACING YEARS OF DEBT.
ITS OK FOR RICH PARENTS WHO CAN SHOULDER THE BURDEN BUT THIS IS PLAINLY DEVISIVE AND WILL EXCLUDE CERAIN PARTS OF SOCIETY TO ACHIEVE A HIGHER EDUCATION AND BETTER THEMSELVES.
THE LIBERALS SHOULD BE ASHAMED SELLING THEMSELVES OUT LIKE COMMON PROSTITUTES.
JUDGE

Firstly, it is £9,000 a year, not a term. Secondly, your argument is plain illogical. You point out that the debt may never be paid off - which is why, as is currently the case, the remaining debt is written off when one hits 65. You also point out that there are insufficient jobs for the "current raft of students". Correct, and the reason for this is that too many people are going to university. One has only to listen to the students interviewed to understand that students are now encouraged to believe that higher education is a right, rather than a privilege; that is not the case, and it is, in part, that approach that has made the higher education sector so overpopulated.

There is absolutely no reason why these plans should be divisive, or should exclude anybody. Those wishing to go to university can still go, and will start to pay the fees, as a tiny percentage of their salary, once they earn £21,000 a year.

In case people haven't noticed, the country doesn't have any more money, and it's pointless pointing the finger at the bankers, or the government, or immigrants, or whatever, because it's not relevant whose fault it is; something has to be done. Obviously, it's not ideal to have make cuts, but it is necessary, and somebody's got to pay for them.

I came out of university less than 6 years ago, and still have huge debts that I am paying off incredibly slowly; had the fees been £9000 a year, it would not have deterred me from going.

Why don't people grow up a bit and understand that university education _is_ a privilege, and that the state can't just give people what they want, regardless of the cost.

By the way, Judge, there is a key on the left of your keyboard bearing the label "Caps Lock". I suggest you use it; block capitals are extraordinarily bad internet etiquette, and they turn your sometimes perfectly reasonable arguments into the rabid rantings of a barely-coherent lunatic. Just a thought.

Ladies and Gentlemen The easy way to sort this out is to make Sir Philip Green pay his taxes. 1.2 Billion pound dividend (3.85 Million pound tax avoided) paid out to the single shareholder of the Arcadia group, which is surprise surprise his WIFE who lives and is registered for tax purposes as a Monaco resident. How many more of these greedy money grabbing tax avoiding scoundrels are there? Mr Green you got rich off the consumer in this country so pay your bloody tax in this country along with the rest of us. Just imagine how much more money would be availble to all.

RAISING tuition fees is “a vital part of building a better future”, Wycombe MP Steve Baker has told students - but he hasn't told them WHO is going to get a better future out of this: it certainly isn't the students, those from low or even middle income households. It is the Bankers, the millionaires (oh, like the proposers and many supporters of this policy) and those who will not have to pay increased taxes to cover the deficit.
Gajcook - you have fallen for the Tory media campaign - although there is certainly a shortage of money, cuts are NOT the only or even the best solution. Collecting the tax that is already due from the rich and the flourishing companies will do far more to refill the coffers of UK plc than slashing benefits and making students pay increased fees - but this would hurt those who have returned a Tory government to power and who now have to be rewarded.
And look ahead as well - this will make it a lot easier for companies in future to cut the cost of recruiting graduates - who will be keen to take a job with a salary below £21,000. This policy will serve in future to create a new Poverty Trap for graduates.
Tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance is the answer - and fronting up to the British people who always seem to want all the services without paying for them.
As someone who earns a reasonable salary now, I would far prefer to pay more in taxes to preserve the benefits of those less fortunate and the right to a decent education than see those at the bottom pushed further down just so I can pay less tax.

RE Tuition Fees,
there is only one way to stop this being applied and that is as follows.
Tell your MP that is he or she votes for this then you promise not to vote for them for at least one if not two general elections. Then see how suddenly following the party line to progress their careers is not as interesting as being elected again.
It may also remind them that they are there to represent us and to look after our interests even if it means going against the party line.
To Steve Baker, Please do not presume that we have not understood your message, we have but still do not like it, so listen to the people that elected you and for once look after them and not your own interests. Thank you

MOCOB wrote:
RAISING tuition fees is “a vital part of building a better future”, Wycombe MP Steve Baker has told students - but he hasn't told them WHO is going to get a better future out of this: it certainly isn't the students, those from low or even middle income households. It is the Bankers, the millionaires (oh, like the proposers and many supporters of this policy) and those who will not have to pay increased taxes to cover the deficit.
Gajcook - you have fallen for the Tory media campaign - although there is certainly a shortage of money, cuts are NOT the only or even the best solution. Collecting the tax that is already due from the rich and the flourishing companies will do far more to refill the coffers of UK plc than slashing benefits and making students pay increased fees - but this would hurt those who have returned a Tory government to power and who now have to be rewarded.
And look ahead as well - this will make it a lot easier for companies in future to cut the cost of recruiting graduates - who will be keen to take a job with a salary below £21,000. This policy will serve in future to create a new Poverty Trap for graduates.
Tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance is the answer - and fronting up to the British people who always seem to want all the services without paying for them.
As someone who earns a reasonable salary now, I would far prefer to pay more in taxes to preserve the benefits of those less fortunate and the right to a decent education than see those at the bottom pushed further down just so I can pay less tax.

I CONCUR.
GAJCOCK HAS BEEN MISS-INFORMED AND IS OUT OF TOUCH.
WASNT MR. GREEN GIVEN A JOB BY THE GOVERNMENT?
TALK ABOUT BEING GIVEN THE KEYS TO THE COOKIE JAR......
..DO THESE PEOPLE REALLY THINK WE ARE ALL STUPID..... BIG SOCIETY MEANS "BIG LIE" - THIS COALITION IS BEGINNING TO LOOK MORE AND MORE LIKE SNOW EVERY DAY:

PRETTY WHEN IT ARRIVES BUT AFTER A WHILE IT LOSES ITS APPEAL, TURNS TO SLUDGE AND BECOMES WATERED DOWN AND YOU WISH IT WOULD JUST GO AWAY...

JUDGE

I am currently a student. the fee increase will not affect me, but it will affect my younger brother. i don't, however, object to the government's plans. at what point did someone turn round and say students had a right to financial aid in higher education. society in recent years has become a place where people, especially young people, have become obsessed with what they feel they deserve, and they forget about the responsibilities and obligations that these rights entail.

i think it's a shame that the government has to make cuts, but it's their way of trying to dig us out of a mess, and i could not claim to have any better solution!

Sorry the tax avoided was 385 Million not 3.85, see what a misplaced decimal point can do.

allipotamus wrote:
I am currently a student. the fee increase will not affect me, but it will affect my younger brother. i don't, however, object to the government's plans. at what point did someone turn round and say students had a right to financial aid in higher education. society in recent years has become a place where people, especially young people, have become obsessed with what they feel they deserve, and they forget about the responsibilities and obligations that these rights entail.

i think it's a shame that the government has to make cuts, but it's their way of trying to dig us out of a mess, and i could not claim to have any better solution!

Sounds like I'm alright jack. You admit it won't affect you and that no one has a divine right to free higher education, if you believe this, I take it you would have no problem paying upto £9,000 for your own education. Of course higher education should be free to all, how else do we encourage our youngsters to realise their potential.

Of course he'll vote for it, he's a lacky, he does what his masters tell him to do rather than what those he supposedly represents want.

Once again, one can only be left with the depressing thought that the argument is a pointless one. If people refuse to look at the facts, and instead continue to subscribe to and perpetuate the ill-informed and illogical tripe they are fed by various sensationalist outlets, then there is little point in continuing the discussion. I say again, the increase will make no practical difference to anybody that goes to university; they will continue to pay the fees back once they are in employment at, if anything, a lower rate than is currently the case.
I have certainly not been misinformed and I am not out of touch. To be honest I'd be surprised if many have researched this as far as I have.
To assert, in all seriousness, that this will create a "poverty trap" for graduates is so demonstrably untrue I can hardly even bring myself to disagree with it. Why on earth should graduates be keen to take a job with a salary below £21,000? If that's the case then why bother going to university in the first place? The monthly repayments are such a tiny percentage that to peddle this as a reason for keeping salaries low is downright absurd.
Why everyone keeps asserting that this will hit those less fortunate I cannot understand. There is no reason why it should stop anyone going to university, as the post-graduation repayments render it a level playing field - it's earnings-based, not background-based.
The lack of logical and rational thought here astounds me.

sparky49 wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen The easy way to sort this out is to make Sir Philip Green pay his taxes. 1.2 Billion pound dividend (3.85 Million pound tax avoided) paid out to the single shareholder of the Arcadia group, which is surprise surprise his WIFE who lives and is registered for tax purposes as a Monaco resident. How many more of these greedy money grabbing tax avoiding scoundrels are there? Mr Green you got rich off the consumer in this country so pay your bloody tax in this country along with the rest of us. Just imagine how much more money would be availble to all.

Vodaphone possibly as much as £6bn in corporation tax (depending on who you believe)
.
Kraft the new owners of Cadbury are in the process of restructring and moving the companies accounting to Switzerland to to minimize their tax bill
.
Tesco - where do I start.
.
Still, everyone seems happy enough to carry on giving them their money.

sparky49 wrote:

allipotamus wrote: I am currently a student. the fee increase will not affect me, but it will affect my younger brother. i don't, however, object to the government's plans. at what point did someone turn round and say students had a right to financial aid in higher education. society in recent years has become a place where people, especially young people, have become obsessed with what they feel they deserve, and they forget about the responsibilities and obligations that these rights entail. i think it's a shame that the government has to make cuts, but it's their way of trying to dig us out of a mess, and i could not claim to have any better solution!

Sounds like I'm alright jack. You admit it won't affect you and that no one has a divine right to free higher education, if you believe this, I take it you would have no problem paying upto £9,000 for your own education. Of course higher education should be free to all, how else do we encourage our youngsters to realise their potential.

it will affect me as it will affect my brother, but no it probably won't directly affect my financial well-being. if i was deciding now whether to go to university or not, then no i wouldn't have a problem with the £9,000 a year if i wanted the education. why should it be the tax payers burden to let me go to university. education should definitely be free for all up to the age of 18. but where do you suggest we draw the line? and encouraging youngsters to realise their potential? surely if these 'youngsters' are old enough to understand monetary insentives then they need little encouragement in making up their own minds about what they want to do, and whether they should go to university, without your condescension.

WE HAVE ALL MISSED THE POINT.
THE FACT IS THAT CERTAIN PARTS OF SOCIETY SHOULD BE IMMUNE FROM POLITICS.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS WE HAVE HAD AN INCREASE IN SO CALLED "MICKEY MOUSE" DEGREES.
.....YOU WILL NOTE THAT EVEN MCSHIT IS OFFERING DEGREES.
THIS CANT BE RIGHT.
DEGREES BY THEIR VERY NATURE SHOULD BE BASED ON ESTABLISHED CLASSICAL DEGREES SUCH AS ENGLISH, LAW AND MEDICINE.
THE UNIVERSITIES HAVE A LOT TO ANSWER BY ATTRACTING STUDENTS.

WE NEED TO RESTRICT PLACES BY INCREASING EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS RATHER THAN PLACING FINANCIAL OBSTRUCTIONS IN PLACE.
EDUCATION SHOULD BE FREE.
PAYABLE FROM YOU INCREASED WAGES WHEN YOU LEAVE UNI BUT ONLY PAYABLE WHEN YOU EARN OVER £30K PER YEAR AS PART OF THE HIGH TAXATION SYSTEM WE HAVE IN BROKEN BRITAIN.

LETS STOP ALLOWING POLITICIANS TO MAKE POLITICAL POINTS OVER EDUCATION AND LET THEM FOCUS ON THE ECONOMY - WITH THE BLEAK FUTURE FACING MANY OVERPAID PUBLIC SERVICE WORKERS WHO FACE LOSING THEIR CUSHY LITTLE JOBS.
JUDGE

The argument about whether higher education is a right or a priviledge is irrelevent. Its a necessity.
.
If we are going to sustain the kind of society we have now, reliant on a skilled and highly educated workforce then we need to encourage people to go to university.
.
My generation, the ones who had the free tuition and the grants (not loans) have brought you most of the stuff thats taken for granted - internet technology, sateliteTV, coronary bypass grafts, a realistic chance of surviving many cancers, cars that start first time on freezing cold mornings. The list is endless.
.
If you want this to continue then you will have to pay to educate people to carry this on. And, you need to do it now because in 10, 15yrs time, we'll all have f***** off to our retirement homes in the south of france to eke out whatever is left of our pensions.

tom.marlow wrote:
The argument about whether higher education is a right or a priviledge is irrelevent. Its a necessity.
.
If we are going to sustain the kind of society we have now, reliant on a skilled and highly educated workforce then we need to encourage people to go to university.
.
My generation, the ones who had the free tuition and the grants (not loans) have brought you most of the stuff thats taken for granted - internet technology, sateliteTV, coronary bypass grafts, a realistic chance of surviving many cancers, cars that start first time on freezing cold mornings. The list is endless.
.
If you want this to continue then you will have to pay to educate people to carry this on. And, you need to do it now because in 10, 15yrs time, we'll all have f***** off to our retirement homes in the south of france to eke out whatever is left of our pensions.

......AND I WOULD NOT BLAME YOU TOM.
I AGREE 100%.
WE NEED THESE POLITICIANS TO PULL THEIR FINGERS OUT.
HOWEVER.....
WE ALL FACE A STARK AND CLEAR AND PRESENT DILEMA. ITS SO SERIOUS THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT VERY CAREFULLY OF INCREASING FEES.
ITS CALLED POLITICS....
AS FOR THAT CLASS ACT "THE MAGNIFICENT MILLIBRANDS" THEY HAVE NO HOPE OF EVER GETTING BACK INTO POWER.
SO WHAT OTHER OPTIONS DO WE HAVE?
LIBERALS?
THINK AGAIN WE HAVE SEEN THEIR TRUE COLOURS IN STARK TECHNICOLOUR.
CONSERVATIVES WHO SEEM INTENT ON CONTRACTING BROKEN BRITAIN TO A 3RD WORLD ECONOMY BY PLACING A GREAT MANY PEOPLE ON THE DOLE AND MAKING EDUCATION AN ELITE PATH PROMOTED BY ELITIST CABINET (MOST HAVE BEEN TO OXFORD).
YOU SEE THE PROBLEM?
WHAT WE NEED IS FOR STUDENTS TO TAKE THIS FURTHER AND STRIKE.
JUDGE

The Judge wrote:

tom.marlow wrote: The argument about whether higher education is a right or a priviledge is irrelevent. Its a necessity. . If we are going to sustain the kind of society we have now, reliant on a skilled and highly educated workforce then we need to encourage people to go to university. . My generation, the ones who had the free tuition and the grants (not loans) have brought you most of the stuff thats taken for granted - internet technology, sateliteTV, coronary bypass grafts, a realistic chance of surviving many cancers, cars that start first time on freezing cold mornings. The list is endless. . If you want this to continue then you will have to pay to educate people to carry this on. And, you need to do it now because in 10, 15yrs time, we'll all have f***** off to our retirement homes in the south of france to eke out whatever is left of our pensions.

......AND I WOULD NOT BLAME YOU TOM. I AGREE 100%. WE NEED THESE POLITICIANS TO PULL THEIR FINGERS OUT. HOWEVER..... WE ALL FACE A STARK AND CLEAR AND PRESENT DILEMA. ITS SO SERIOUS THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT VERY CAREFULLY OF INCREASING FEES. ITS CALLED POLITICS.... AS FOR THAT CLASS ACT "THE MAGNIFICENT MILLIBRANDS" THEY HAVE NO HOPE OF EVER GETTING BACK INTO POWER. SO WHAT OTHER OPTIONS DO WE HAVE? LIBERALS? THINK AGAIN WE HAVE SEEN THEIR TRUE COLOURS IN STARK TECHNICOLOUR. CONSERVATIVES WHO SEEM INTENT ON CONTRACTING BROKEN BRITAIN TO A 3RD WORLD ECONOMY BY PLACING A GREAT MANY PEOPLE ON THE DOLE AND MAKING EDUCATION AN ELITE PATH PROMOTED BY ELITIST CABINET (MOST HAVE BEEN TO OXFORD). YOU SEE THE PROBLEM? WHAT WE NEED IS FOR STUDENTS TO TAKE THIS FURTHER AND STRIKE. JUDGE

You wouldn't be french by any chance would you?
.
Next thing, you'll be encouraging them to dig up the pavé in stokenchurch and start hurling it at the thames valley gendarmerie :-)
.
Seriously though, I think that students in more important subjects (science, technology, medicine, things that we will be well and truly stuffed without) should be paid a wage to compensate fro the 3 years loss of earnings they would otherwise have got from stacking shelves to help Tesco move vast sums of money offshore.

The argument about whether higher education is a right or a priviledge is irrelevent. Its a necessity.

University is for people who are serious about learning something at a higher level, not for kids to go and party. It's bad enough that my uni has become like a high school with too many posers and anti-social behaviour problems.

For people who aren't serious about undertaking an academic course, the solution is to get a job. Even with the current rate of fees, it's often financially better to be working after leaving school.

Judge, why do you have to shout all the time?

allipotamus wrote:

sparky49 wrote:

allipotamus wrote: I am currently a student. the fee increase will not affect me, but it will affect my younger brother. i don't, however, object to the government's plans. at what point did someone turn round and say students had a right to financial aid in higher education. society in recent years has become a place where people, especially young people, have become obsessed with what they feel they deserve, and they forget about the responsibilities and obligations that these rights entail. i think it's a shame that the government has to make cuts, but it's their way of trying to dig us out of a mess, and i could not claim to have any better solution!

Sounds like I'm alright jack. You admit it won't affect you and that no one has a divine right to free higher education, if you believe this, I take it you would have no problem paying upto £9,000 for your own education. Of course higher education should be free to all, how else do we encourage our youngsters to realise their potential.

it will affect me as it will affect my brother, but no it probably won't directly affect my financial well-being. if i was deciding now whether to go to university or not, then no i wouldn't have a problem with the £9,000 a year if i wanted the education. why should it be the tax payers burden to let me go to university. education should definitely be free for all up to the age of 18. but where do you suggest we draw the line? and encouraging youngsters to realise their potential? surely if these 'youngsters' are old enough to understand monetary insentives then they need little encouragement in making up their own minds about what they want to do, and whether they should go to university, without your condescension.

You'll be pating for your little brother then to ease the burden on the taxpayer. I was not being condecending, I was making the point that deucation for all upto and including should be stae funded and not elitest.

We should all agree not to respond to anything else Judge says until he stops shouting!

Everyone is entitled to have a view and we all have our own thoughts on it. It should not be down to the tax payer to cover Uni, EVERYONE gets free education from 5yrs to 16yrs are you all forgetting this ??? Not even parents are responsible for paying for the kids after 18, why should the taxpayer ? Parents choose to have kids, they get paid child benefit, so why not put £10 a month back from birth to 16yrs old ? if you can not afford £10 a month then really you shouldn't be bringing a child into your life. Hence they are your responsibility afterall ! BUT that is my view and this is what I will be doing when I start my family !

Lillymoe wrote:
Everyone is entitled to have a view and we all have our own thoughts on it. It should not be down to the tax payer to cover Uni, EVERYONE gets free education from 5yrs to 16yrs are you all forgetting this ??? Not even parents are responsible for paying for the kids after 18, why should the taxpayer ? Parents choose to have kids, they get paid child benefit, so why not put £10 a month back from birth to 16yrs old ? if you can not afford £10 a month then really you shouldn't be bringing a child into your life. Hence they are your responsibility afterall ! BUT that is my view and this is what I will be doing when I start my family !

And assuming you get a reasonable rate of return on your £10 a month, you might just cover half the first years tuition fees. Do the arithmetic.
.
We need a highly educated population. We should be prepared to pay for it.

tom.marlow wrote:

Lillymoe wrote:
Everyone is entitled to have a view and we all have our own thoughts on it. It should not be down to the tax payer to cover Uni, EVERYONE gets free education from 5yrs to 16yrs are you all forgetting this ??? Not even parents are responsible for paying for the kids after 18, why should the taxpayer ? Parents choose to have kids, they get paid child benefit, so why not put £10 a month back from birth to 16yrs old ? if you can not afford £10 a month then really you shouldn't be bringing a child into your life. Hence they are your responsibility afterall ! BUT that is my view and this is what I will be doing when I start my family !

And assuming you get a reasonable rate of return on your £10 a month, you might just cover half the first years tuition fees. Do the arithmetic.
.
We need a highly educated population. We should be prepared to pay for it.

Well said Tom

These students will be paying tax one day and therefore they will be funding more students and thus it goes on.
I have worked all my life so I could argue why should my taxes go to fund the long term unemployed or people who claim benefits when they don't need to be.
I don't because it is part of living in society so I just suck it up.
I think this government are a disgrace and the opposition needs to start opposing!!

demoness wrote:
These students will be paying tax one day and therefore they will be funding more students and thus it goes on. I have worked all my life so I could argue why should my taxes go to fund the long term unemployed or people who claim benefits when they don't need to be. I don't because it is part of living in society so I just suck it up. I think this government are a disgrace and the opposition needs to start opposing!!

Spot on.

tom.marlow wrote:

demoness wrote:
These students will be paying tax one day and therefore they will be funding more students and thus it goes on. I have worked all my life so I could argue why should my taxes go to fund the long term unemployed or people who claim benefits when they don't need to be. I don't because it is part of living in society so I just suck it up. I think this government are a disgrace and the opposition needs to start opposing!!

Spot on.

Ditto.

To all the bleeding hearts and people that have been taken in by the propaganda have a serious look at what they're actually doing. When I went to university I had to take out a loan. Granted the loan wasn't as high as is proposed but on leaving uni I had to start paying it back at a rate of 10% of whatever I earnt over 15k. Now I'm sure most of the sensible ones amongst you would agree that 15k isn't a lot of money to live on. However I paid it back and as my earnings went up, in part due to my degree this was paid off. The new system will ensure that people only start paying back when they're earning well over 20k a year, enough to rent a flat, run a car, feed themselves and have a bit left over, once they start earning more than this they will pay back ten% of whatever they earn over this threshold. Therefore still reaping the benefits of their education and hard work. The new system seems much fairer and more sensible than the current system, so whilst in the long term they will have to pay back more they will have a better standard I'd living early on and hopefully after a few years when their on the big bucks 10% of whatever they're earning over the threshold will be like a drop in the ocean anyway. People get over the hysteria it's a sensible policy.

CBHYC wrote:
To all the bleeding hearts and people that have been taken in by the propaganda have a serious look at what they're actually doing. When I went to university I had to take out a loan. Granted the loan wasn't as high as is proposed but on leaving uni I had to start paying it back at a rate of 10% of whatever I earnt over 15k. Now I'm sure most of the sensible ones amongst you would agree that 15k isn't a lot of money to live on. However I paid it back and as my earnings went up, in part due to my degree this was paid off. The new system will ensure that people only start paying back when they're earning well over 20k a year, enough to rent a flat, run a car, feed themselves and have a bit left over, once they start earning more than this they will pay back ten% of whatever they earn over this threshold. Therefore still reaping the benefits of their education and hard work. The new system seems much fairer and more sensible than the current system, so whilst in the long term they will have to pay back more they will have a better standard I'd living early on and hopefully after a few years when their on the big bucks 10% of whatever they're earning over the threshold will be like a drop in the ocean anyway. People get over the hysteria it's a sensible policy.

WHAT WE NEED IS A COMPLETE RE-THINK ON THE ROLE OF THE STATE.

YOU SHOULD ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY RATHER THAN WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU.

WHAT IS NEEDED IS A COMPLETE ABOLITION OF ALL BENEFITS.
WHY SHOULD WE ENCOURAGE OUR CHILDREN FROM THE MOMEMT THEY ARE BORN WITH THE "CHILD TRUST FUND" WHERE CHILDREN GET £500 FROM CHILD BENEFIT TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

WE NEED PEOPLE TO START PAYING AND TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIER LIVES AND NOT WAITING FOR THE GIRO TO DROP THROUGH THE LETTER BOX.

THERE ARE TOO MANY LAZY PEOPLE AND NOW WE CAN INCLUDE STUDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN A DISGRACE. ITS TIME THAT THOSE WISHING TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF AN EDUCATION MUST GO OUT AND EARN THE MONEY TO PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES.
I WOULD STOP ALL GRANTS AND MAKE STUDENTS WORK TO FUND STUDIES.
THERE ARE TOO MANY "HANGERS-ON" IN THIS COUNTRY WITH ITS BENEFITS DEPENDENCY CULTURE.

STUDENTS WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE - I HAD TO WORK IN A HOTEL IN THE EVENINGS TO FUND MY DEGREE. ITS TIME STUDENTS WHO REALLY WANT THE DEGREE TO WORK FOR IT RATHER THAN SPEND THE EVENINGS DRINKING BEER IN THE STUDENTS UNION AND ACTING STUPID.

JUDGE

Well said Judge, after the awful behaviour in the last protest they seem to be losing public support.

A free education for all would be great but unfortuately the country is broke so cannot afford it. That said, the best way to secure a strong future economy is to invest in education, there is not an economist in the world who would not agree with that. The new student loan package is not great, but by international standards it is not bad, especially as you do not have to start paying back until you earn 21k.

For what it is worth, I think we spend way too much of our taxes on the myth of democracy, we seem to have elections for everything and still no one listens to us, we should do away with the layers of beurocracy and invest the savings in our education system.

Secondly, we have some of the best educational institutions in the world, what we do not have is the best students and the best work force at the unskilled level. We need to change our immigration laws to adapt to this reality rather than just keep opening our borders to Eastern European builders and plumbers.

Finally, it is not the bankers that broke our economy. It was the politicians. They changed the rules of the financial game, they took away the protections of the gold standard, regulatory capital and restrictions on the activities of banks. You cannot blame the players, they did what you would expect of them given the rules of the game.

Funny thing is, these student loans will be securitised and hedged into the same products that got us into this mess. Some lucky bankers, lawyer, accountants and hedge fund managers will make a lot of money out of repackaging these loans and selling them to your pension schemes.