Am I missing the point about tuition fees?

[Danny-Boy]

My understanding is that because the funding transfers from being a direct payment (to the institutions) to a loan (to the students) it is considered by the bean counters not to be part of direct government spending as it will eventually be repaid. By accounting convention it therefore improves the balance sheet.

Although I am largely retired I know that my institution has worked through the numbers and considers that it will have to charge a fee in the order of £7.7K per annum just to "stand still" in relation to the loss of direct government funding. Some degree courses will still attract additional direct government grants (ie. Science and Maths degrees). Expect even the most mundane universities to charge an initial fee of around £7.5K-£8K and the elite institutions to charge the maximum £9K.

Willit affect student numbers? Hard to tell. When we introduced fees in this country there was realistically no impact on student numbers despite the initial furore. In Australia when they introduced a full fee system the numbers dropped for two years and are now back to, and higher than, the previous level. I guess if a degree will help you to get any job (let alone a higher paid one) in the current climate it is worth it's weight (literally) in gold. I suspect that over the next couple of years, once schools, universities, careers officers et al help students to do the sums for potential long term income benefit vs very low repayment costs, the impact will be less than we might forecast now. One possible concern is the impact of higher fee levels on overseas student numbers as currently this source of additional income helps many universities to keep down the fees charged to home students. If their numbers decrease as a result of the fees hike, then the charges to home students might ultimately be even higher than currently forecast.

Thank you for this appraisal. Being myself active in political circles, it's sometimes difficult to look at a political football without wanting to kick it into one particular goal. Posts like this really help.

That's why despite my club allegiances I like posting on NSC.

 

[severnside gull]

Put me down as abstaining.

The way the political process is developing, maybe "single issue" campaigning is the future?

In Wyre Forest we enjoyed having an independant MP for two parliaments , elected purely on the single issue of local emergency hospital provision. It was arguably the most successful and harmonious period, politically, that I can recall and by the nature of his tenure, local residents were more aware of his voting record on all issues than previously or, indeed currently.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

My apologies, I had a message through other circles that you were active politically with "Real Labour", or is it "21st Century Labour"

Fascinating. Sauce? Wikileaks? Completely untrue, btw.

Bizarrely, though ... I was asked a few weeks ago (by the local branch of the Conservative Party) if I would stand as a Tory candidate in the next Lewes District Council election.

 

[Danny-Boy]

In Wyre Forest we enjoyed having an independant MP for two parliaments , elected purely on the single issue of local emergency hospital provision. It was arguably the most successful and harmonious period, politically, that I can recall and by the nature of his tenure, local residents were more aware of his voting record on all issues than previously or, indeed currently.

To be fair he was only elected IMHO because the Liberal Democrats agreed to stand down in the constituency to allow him to run.

I wrote to him about 2004 about the local lack of any kind of proper hospital facilities in Seaford for a town of near 25,000 , and he was extremely kind enough to write back with full details of the NHS criteria. That was far more helpful than replies from other MP's on different issues when they will just say "I have passed your letter to your local MP as he is supposed to represent your views".

 

[Danny-Boy]

Glad to hear it Lord B. So you are really a Cross-Bencher then or should it be Cross Bencher?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I'm certainly CROSS.

 

[steward 433]

Bizarrely, though ... I was asked a few weeks ago (by the local branch of the Conservative Party) if I would stand as a Tory candidate in the next Lewes District Council election.

Out of interest would you ever stand for election again? Not party specific just did you enjoy it and consider it again?

 

[Jim D]

I thought about this as well, and I don't understand it either. I guess some of the richer people will pay the fees upfront, especially a lot of the international students. And for those that don't they won't class it as part of the defecit because it will be the students who owe the money, thereby making it look like the government has reduced more of the defecit than they actually have?

That's about it. It's an accountancy fiddle to make it appear that the Govt is spending less on Universities. They are also removing the grants they used to give 6th form kids to stay in education. Don't know how much they're saving on all this but it must be loads.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Out of interest would you ever stand for election again? Not party specific just did you enjoy it and consider it again?

It was hard work and great fun. I'm not sure that WINNING an election would deliver much fun, though.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The coalition has raised university tuition fees and introduced a new system whereby students will repay their fees at some stage in the future.

The justification for this is that the country is in an immediate financial crisis and has to cut public spending NOW.

But no student will be asked to pay anything until AFTER they have graduated and start earning real money.

So ... who is paying for university education NOW?

The government, apparently. Or the taxpayer, if you prefer to see things that way.

How does this achieve the objective of addressing the immediate financial crisis by cutting public spending NOW?

My guess is that it is like when people are made redundant from a company / organisation, the savings arn't immediate as they have to fork out extra to pay the leaving staff off, but over time it saves money and is better in the long run.

Tackling the crippling national debt won't be solved in just a year or two, but over a long period of time, so measures introduced now will have to keep spending down in the future and mean money can be spent towards more essential things like Police, NHS, Primary and Secondary education etc...

The main thing being tackled first is the budget deficit left by Labour.

 

[The Auditor]

It would of course be completely cynical to suggest the Government is using the umbrella of financial crisis to push through an ideological programme which it might not be able to force at other times.

This

 

[Uter]

The coalition has raised university tuition fees and introduced a new system whereby students will repay their fees at some stage in the future.

The justification for this is that the country is in an immediate financial crisis and has to cut public spending NOW.

But no student will be asked to pay anything until AFTER they have graduated and start earning real money.

So ... who is paying for university education NOW?

The government, apparently. Or the taxpayer, if you prefer to see things that way.

How does this achieve the objective of addressing the immediate financial crisis by cutting public spending NOW?

The cynic in me thinks that they are using the financial crisis as an excuse to do exactly the sort of things they wanted to do anyway.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Someone needs to ask the government for some figures. Pretty much all the government cuts are resulting in redundancies and restructuring, which consequently costs money up front before any savings are eventually made. So, plunging even further into debt, even more people on the dole queue and somehow everything will be rosy and paid back in 5 years time. No wonder there was a queue of Nobel awarded economists not to mention Mervyn King questioning Gideon Osborne's lack of economic knowledge and experience. Seems all you need is a stupid name, no meaningful work experience and a cock up the arse in the Bullington Club to hold the purse strings these days. Or maybe the butt plugging was at Eton? What do I know?

 

[bhaexpress]

I can't help feeling that the Tories are rather pleased that the Lib Dems have been made fools of. I would think this decision will have cost the Lib Dems a lot of votes for many years to come.

 

[seagulls4ever]

I can't help feeling that the Tories are rather pleased that the Lib Dems have been made fools of. I would think this decision will have cost the Lib Dems a lot of votes for many years to come.

Unfortunetely the actions of the Lib Dems is another step on the way towards two-party politics, which is a shame.

 

[steward 433]

Unfortunetely the actions of the Lib Dems is another step on the way towards two-party politics, which is a shame.

Eh? I thought they were a minority party in a coalition government

 

[seagulls4ever]

Eh? I thought they were a minority party in a coalition government

At the next election there will be a lesser amount of Lib Dem MPs elected, and as a result there will be more Labour and Conservative MPs.

 

[HovaGirl]

It would of course be completely cynical to suggest the Government is using the umbrella of financial crisis to push through an ideological programme which it might not be able to force at other times.

The UK is £13 trillion pounds in debt, thanks to Labour. I hardly think the new Government has an ideological agenda. What would that agenda be, anyway? The only agenda this government has, is to reduce the national debt, or reduce the capacity for creating even more national debt.

 

[HovaGirl]

The coalition has raised university tuition fees and introduced a new system whereby students will repay their fees at some stage in the future.

The justification for this is that the country is in an immediate financial crisis and has to cut public spending NOW.

But no student will be asked to pay anything until AFTER they have graduated and start earning real money.

So ... who is paying for university education NOW?

The government, apparently. Or the taxpayer, if you prefer to see things that way.

How does this achieve the objective of addressing the immediate financial crisis by cutting public spending NOW?

It doesn't help to cut public spending now, but should help to reduce the national in the future, as and when some of today's students begin to repay their loans.

 

[HovaGirl]

An interesting point and I don't know but it's very similar to the benefits change which we're told will cost several billion to introduce now, but save money in the long term. I though we had a 5 year plan to reduce the deficit so presumably these efforts won''t come in on time.

The country paid out more in benefits last year than it received in taxes. And that is without our taxes having to pay for the army, the police, the NHS, general education, roadbuilding, paying back debts or anything else the Government uses our money for. Benefits can't just be slashed instantly. The Government knows that is far too insensitive and difficult for people who have commitments, such as children at school or new babies to feed. So it has to be done by increments, with a warning that your benefits are going to be reduced so you'd better go and find your living expenses elsewhere, as in, get a job. Any job.