University tuition fees

[Herr Tubthumper]

Do I need to remind you that this report was commissioned by the last government? Do you not think that Labour would be doing exactly as Vince Cable has been were they still in power? It's no good paying an independent 'expert' to look into this issue and then completely ignoring his advice. Stop trying to spin this into some kind of anti-coalition argument, it's boring and it has no relevance.

I know the history of this report. I do not care who commissioned it, I do not care who runs with its contents. I am opposed to it regardless. I have criticised the Labour Party before on their stance to education, i think I've done it in this thread actually. My views have been the same for decades, through the previous tory government, New Labour and the Coalition.

Browne might be an expert on the facts of education, but at the end of the day his role in this report is as a opinion leader...and my opinion differs.

You will just have to trust my sincerity here. Hell, even Bushy said 'fair enough' to some of my comments yesterday.

 

[ROSM]

Thats an excellent suggestion, lets smash the f*** out of every rich person who is responsible for job creation in this Country. That way they are sure to be incentivised to plough more money into the economy to create the jobs we need.

well if we use Phillip Green's plans for leveraging better terms off suppliers then I'm sure we'll be doing that too!

 

[BLOCK F]

My God,this topic has certainly brought our leftie posters to new heights of hysteria.
For Pete's sake,read the details,take it in and then comment.
It is never good news when things get more expensive,but a proposed rise in uni fees has been on the cards for ages and indeed,it was the Labour Party who commissioned the report because they realised that things could not continue like they were.Don't kid yourselves that things would be much different if Labour were in power;they wouldn't be.
Some comments are bordering on thoughts that this is somehow a right wing conspiracy to keep the proles in their place and deny them the opportunity to go to uni.What a load of tosh.The graduate has the debt,not the parents.It is then up to that graduate to make his way in the world the best he can,regardless of parental wealth or otherwise.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Unfortunately, anyone who voted for this bunch of inept tossers (that's either party by the way) has got exactly what they deserve.

The Conservative wankers would have us go back to the 1920's where higher education was a priviledge rather that a right.
And the bloody Liberals are just going along for the (brief) ride!

You forgot to mention which Party:

(A) Introduced Tuition Fees.

(B) Set up the Browne Report.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Thats an excellent suggestion, lets smash the f*** out of every rich person who is responsible for job creation in this Country. That way they are sure to be incentivised to plough more money into the economy to create the jobs we need.

Some tax on Philip Green's dividend would be nice.

 

[Peteinblack]

One thing that no one seems to have been mentioning anywhere... are the universities justifying the higher fees with the quality of service they provide? I would argue that a lot of the time they aren't and that is at the current fee level. There was no significant change in the standards from before the last fee rise a few years ago, so are we to expect anything different this time?

I expect that what happened when top-up fees were first introduced will simply happen again - most of the extra money will be spent on yet more bureaucrats and middle managers (whose number have increased by a third in universities over the last 10 years) - quality assurance officers, strategic development co-ordinators, alumni officers, curriculum modernisation officers, ad nauseum - all of whom will spout the usual corporate bullshit about how their jobs are necessary to make sure the extra money from increased fees is being spent efficiently (listen out for lots of jargon about 'accountabilty' and 'transparency', and 'robust mechanisms' to achieve these, from people who hide behind smoke-and-mirrors and management-speak).

Oh, and university vice-chancellors (increasingly recruited from the private sector to turn universities into corporate businesses, rather than places of education and learning) will pay themselves even more obscene salaries on the grounds that the extra money coming in from higher fees means that they have even more responsibilities and pressures!

Little of the extra money will 'trickle down' to improve facilities or teaching for students, nor will lecturers see much of the extra money either.

 

[Simster]

My God,this topic has certainly brought our leftie posters to new heights of hysteria.
For Pete's sake,read the details,take it in and then comment.
It is never good news when things get more expensive,but a proposed rise in uni fees has been on the cards for ages and indeed,it was the Labour Party who commissioned the report because they realised that things could not continue like they were.Don't kid yourselves that things would be much different if Labour were in power;they wouldn't be.
Some comments are bordering on thoughts that this is somehow a right wing conspiracy to keep the proles in their place and deny them the opportunity to go to uni.What a load of tosh.The graduate has the debt,not the parents.It is then up to that graduate to make his way in the world the best he can,regardless of parental wealth or otherwise.

On the other hand, how many times do the middle classes need to be f***ed over before you Tory apologists admit they are the party of the wealthy? Last week it was a child support policy hitting indiscriminate sectors of the population owing to the fact it was clearly thought through in a Westminster pub, and now we have this - a policy that is CLEARLY going to hammer poorer graduates far more than wealthier ones, owing to their differing attitudes to being saddled with a massive debt. As El Pres said, we already have a method of high flyers paying back tuitition fees, and it is called the higher rate of income tax.

We're all in this together, MY f***ing ARSE.

 

[El Presidente]

Thats an excellent suggestion, lets smash the f*** out of every rich person who is responsible for job creation in this Country. That way they are sure to be incentivised to plough more money into the economy to create the jobs we need.

Two points

1: It was you who said we ALL have to contribute. I merely pointed out that this was not the case.

2: How is giving someone £720 million after paying tax 'smashing the f***' out of him?

 

[El Presidente]

Oh, and university vice-chancellors (increasingly recruited from the private sector to turn universities into corporate businesses, rather than places of education and learning) will pay themselves even more obscene salaries on the grounds that the extra money coming in from higher fees means that they have even more responsibilities and pressures!

Little of the extra money will 'trickle down' to improve facilities or teaching for students, nor will lecturers see much of the extra money either.

Of the current £6,500 that is paid for each student (personal and government contribution) for tuition each year, approximately £600 is spent on front line teaching, the other 90% disappears into various black holes.

 

[Peteinblack]

You forgot to mention which Party:

(A) Introduced Tuition Fees.

(B) Set up the Browne Report.

Labour did, which is why I keep saying, all of the three main parties are as bad as each other - they all screw Middle England and ordinary hard-working people, but bow and scrape to 'the City' and big business because, as Uncle C implies, we are dependent on the rich for jobs. These are the bastards who hold us to ransom - 'place curbs on our obscene salaries and bonuses, and we'll emigrate and leave you fuckers rotting on the dole' - so our politicians, NuLabour, Tories and Lib Dems, impoverish ordinary people instead.

Britain is not a democracy, but a plutocracy (rule by the rich).

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think you are doing the poor a disservice. If they have the drive, determination and intelligence to get these top jobs then they will factor in the debt. If they they dont then they are not the right people to be on the course anyway.

Rich and poor parents have always existed. Its a fact of life and even exists in communist states. You just have to grin and bare it.

I agree you need drive, determination etc but you should not need the balls of Superman to be able to get on a degree course. We're also talking about young people here, some who might just have the raw intelligence and need to develop these other aspects of their character. They need a chance as well.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Some tax on Philip Green's dividend would be nice.

Well, quite. And where does this idea come from that if you create some jobs (it's always portrayed as altruism, rather than the person at the top in fact just trying to make even more money for themselves) you somehow shouldn't pay any tax? WTF is that all about? Tell you what, Philip Green and Lord Ashcroft shouldn't pay a penny, in fact, take my salary as well in gratitude for everything they've done.

 

[BLOCK F]

On the other hand, how many times do the middle classes need to be f***ed over before you Tory apologists admit they are the party of the wealthy? Last week it was a child support policy hitting indiscriminate sectors of the population owing to the fact it was clearly thought through in a Westminster pub, and now we have this - a policy that is CLEARLY going to hammer poorer graduates far more than wealthier ones, owing to their differing attitudes to being saddled with a massive debt. As El Pres said, we already have a method of high flyers paying back tuitition fees, and it is called the higher rate of income tax.

We're all in this together, MY f***ing ARSE.

Good old Simster,...can always be relied upon to wave the Red Flag!
I am certainly no Tory apologist,but I really do feel that the righteous indignation has been rather overdone.Answer me this.What do you think the Labour Party would have done if they had been in power?
What income do you consider a family has to have to be considered wealthy?
Do you agree that any price increase in any commodity affects the less well-off rather more than those with larger incomes?
Finally,as I have posted before,I do agree that the way the Child Benefit changes have been bought in are abysmal and not fair at all;but at least,the poorest in society are unaffected.
One more thing.My eldest boy is going to uni in Sept.2011 and so will be affected by these changes.We are not pleased,but neither are we hysterical.

 

[KneeOn]

My God,this topic has certainly brought our leftie posters to new heights of hysteria.
For Pete's sake,read the details,take it in and then comment.
It is never good news when things get more expensive,but a proposed rise in uni fees has been on the cards for ages and indeed,it was the Labour Party who commissioned the report because they realised that things could not continue like they were.Don't kid yourselves that things would be much different if Labour were in power;they wouldn't be.
Some comments are bordering on thoughts that this is somehow a right wing conspiracy to keep the proles in their place and deny them the opportunity to go to uni.What a load of tosh.The graduate has the debt,not the parents.It is then up to that graduate to make his way in the world the best he can,regardless of parental wealth or otherwise.

f*** off.

Are you advocating 20 or 30 grand of debts for poorer people having a f***ing aspiration?!

Your a typical conservative. Its all well and good because the poorer people in society are going to get f***ed out of getting any oppertunity for social movement.

And before you start talking about "leftie hysteria" its not leftie to want to get a degree. Its not leftie to see that actually some of the richest children in the country are actually really f***ing stupid and some of the poorest are incredibly bright!

And i'm a socialist, I don't believe in New Labour.

 

[BLOCK F]

Labour did, which is why I keep saying, all of the three main parties are as bad as each other - they all screw Middle England and ordinary hard-working people, but bow and scrape to 'the City' and big business because, as Uncle C implies, we are dependent on the rich for jobs. These are the bastards who hold us to ransom - 'place curbs on our obscene salaries and bonuses, and we'll emigrate and leave you fuckers rotting on the dole' - so our politicians, NuLabour, Tories and Lib Dems, impoverish ordinary people instead.

Britain is not a democracy, but a plutocracy (rule by the rich).

Go and try North Korea,you may like it better than this country,which is far from perfect but still not that bad!

 

[KneeOn]

Good old Simster,...can always be relied upon to wave the Red Flag!
I am certainly no Tory apologist,but I really do feel that the righteous indignation has been rather overdone.Answer me this.What do you think the Labour Party would have done if they had been in power?
What income do you consider a family has to have to be considered wealthy?
Do you agree that any price increase in any commodity affects the less well-off rather more than those with larger incomes?
Finally,as I have posted before,I do agree that the way the Child Benefit changes have been bought in are abysmal and not fair at all;but at least,the poorest in society are unaffected.
One more thing.My eldest boy is going to uni in Sept.2011 and so will be affected by these changes.We are not pleased,but neither are we hysterical.

To quote you:

For Pete's sake,read the details,take it in and then comment.

The Act would only affect 2012 entry at the earliest.

Quality reading of the details there.

 

[BLOCK F]

f*** off.

Are you advocating 20 or 30 grand of debts for poorer people having a f***ing aspiration?!

Your a typical conservative. Its all well and good because the poorer people in society are going to get f***ed out of getting any oppertunity for social movement.

And before you start talking about "leftie hysteria" its not leftie to want to get a degree. Its not leftie to see that actually some of the richest children in the country are actually really f***ing stupid and some of the poorest are incredibly bright!

And i'm a socialist, I don't believe in New Labour.

KneeOn,the abusive language I can cope with,the lack of a decent coherent argument is harder to take.Whatever your politics,I suggest you think more before hitting the keyboards,you will never attract new recruits to your cause by blindly lashing out and ignoring reality.

 

[Peteinblack]

Go and try North Korea,you may like it better than this country,which is far from perfect but still not that bad!

As a patriot, I'd rather stay in my country and see it become a better place.

I could retort that those who think that top-up fees of up to £12,000 per year are a good thing should go and live in the United States, where they already have this 'free market' system in higher education....

 

[ROKERITE]

f*** off.

Are you advocating 20 or 30 grand of debts for poorer people having a f***ing aspiration?!

Your a typical conservative. Its all well and good because the poorer people in society are going to get f***ed out of getting any oppertunity for social movement.

And before you start talking about "leftie hysteria" its not leftie to want to get a degree. Its not leftie to see that actually some of the richest children in the country are actually really f***ing stupid and some of the poorest are incredibly bright!

And i'm a socialist, I don't believe in New Labour.

What an ignorant, uncouth child you are. Unable to find an argument against a well written reply you swear. That's the left I'm afraid.

 

[Simster]

Good old Simster,...can always be relied upon to wave the Red Flag!

Red flag? Too funny. I voted Lib Dem last time out, not commie and not nu Labour! Is anyone to the right of this government waving a red flag then?

I am certainly no Tory apologist,but I really do feel that the righteous indignation has been rather overdone. Answer me this.What do you think the Labour Party would have done if they had been in power?

That's exactly what you are, as we'll see. I don't know what nu Labour would have done, but proper Labour would have raised the highest level of income tax by a penny or two, which is the right and fair thing to do. However, Nu Labour didn't do social justice any more than the Tories do.

What income do you consider a family has to have to be considered wealthy?
Do you agree that any price increase in any commodity affects the less well-off rather more than those with larger incomes?

Anybody earning above the median wage might be considered wealthy, and that is only about £25,000. So it depends on your context. And in any case, this doesn't tell the whole story because you have to factor in house prices and dependents. I agree with your second point, but a university place is not a commodity in the same way as a casual purchase like an x-box. It's an investment in one's future, the country's future and should be affordable to all, IMO.

Finally,as I have posted before,I do agree that the way the Child Benefit changes have been bought in are abysmal and not fair at all;but at least,the poorest in society are unaffected.
One more thing.My eldest boy is going to uni in Sept.2011 and so will be affected by these changes.We are not pleased,but neither are we hysterical.

There you go, proof if it was necessary that you are nothing but a Tory apologist. You can't even admit that these two piss poor policies are completely wrong because they're going to absolutely hammer normal families like your own. You're just going to put up with a shithouse policy recommended by a bloke who just paid himself a £1.2 billion TAX FREE dividend.