[Politics] Are the Tories committing political suicide?

[nicko31]

It didn't stop the Lib Dems.

As soon as you enter into a coalition gov, party manifestos goes out the window. The LD got stuff they wanted like apprenticeships, green investment bank, higher tax free thresholds but had to concede on others, student fees being one of them. Some people never really understood what the coalition was

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Without going all woe is me, the problem isn't that there is a student loan at all (though ideally education should never be about pricing) it's that it is now three times as expensive as it was for people a year older than me (I was the first year of 9k tuition fees).
I stayed at University after my bachelors, and did a master's degree (mostly paid through a scholarship and the remaining money through my savings earned via part-time work). For my three years as an undergraduate I had amassed enough student debt so that I would've needed to earn £38,000 pa in my first real job to pay off the interest accrued each month (not even touching the money "borrowed"). I loved my time at Sussex and would not swap it for anything, but I am extremely lucky that my parents were able to support me to an extent, even though I was employed throughout both degrees.

Now I've found it ridiculously hard to get into my industry of choice, and am earning ridiculously less than the £38,000 needed almost 3 years ago. You are quite lucky in that paying off your loan is a possibility, I have always had a job alongside my studies, have never even taken an overdraft option let alone gone into one, and I'm still well over £50,000 in debt and rising.

Theresa can pretend that freezing tuition fees are a good thing but frankly, I don't want anyone in the future to have the spectre of debt (however, unlikely it is that it'll have to be repaid) hanging over their shoulders in exchange for taking a step into further education.

Those are very fair and clear points made. Thank you for clarifying and I completely understand that I was ridiculously fortunate to study on the lower fees.

I'll be honest, I didn't quite appreciate the levels involved with the new loans.

However, in 'real terms', as in day to day living, (unless my sums are wrong), a £38k wage would mean repaying circa £127 a month to the student loan repayment scheme.

Even if the loan is NEVER EVER going to be repaid for the rest of your life, I still don't see that as 'crippling' as I have heard some students come out with. Obviously you haven't said those words, I'm just responding to a phrase of heard over and over.

If this was a loan which stops credit cards being approved, houses being bought, loans being taken out, then yes. I would appreciate that the headline outstanding debt would indeed be crippling.

 

[GT49er]

As soon as you enter into a coalition gov, party manifestos goes out the window. The LD got stuff they wanted like apprenticeships, green investment bank, higher tax free thresholds but had to concede on others, student fees being one of them. Some people never really understood what the coalition was

Many people did, only too well! That is why the Lib Dems are now a irrelevance.

 

[Beanstalk]

Those are very fair and clear points made. Thank you for clarifying and I completely understand that I was ridiculously fortunate to study on the lower fees.

I'll be honest, I didn't quite appreciate the levels involved with the new loans.

However, in 'real terms', as in day to day living, (unless my sums are wrong), a £38k wage would mean repaying circa £127 a month to the student loan repayment scheme.

Even if the loan is NEVER EVER going to be repaid for the rest of your life, I still don't see that as 'crippling' as I have heard some students come out with. Obviously you haven't said those words, I'm just responding to a phrase of heard over and over.

If this was a loan which stops credit cards being approved, houses being bought, loans being taken out, then yes. I would appreciate that the headline outstanding debt would indeed be crippling.

Absolutely, for me (and I am extremely lucky that I come from a background of financial stability) the real terms of the loan will likely never truly effect me.

However, I have multiple friends (I went to state school in London) who didn't go to university because of the idea of student debt. It doesn't particularly matter about the terms of the debt, the idea was enough to put them off. I find that incredibly sad. There are many reasons why you should or shouldn't go to uni, but in my opinion, money shouldn't be a factor.

Secondly, and especially when Gove was Secretary of State for Education, there was constant talk about selling off the loans to private companies. We've already seen that the terms of the loan can change, so much so that I received a letter from the Student Loan Company after being out of work for 2 months stating that I needed to prove that I wasn't in work or earning below the threshold or they would "take the matter further". So little is being paid back that it genuinely worries me that one day in the not too distant future, despite being financially sound for my whole life, I will be forced to pay back my student loan to a private company.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Many people did, only too well! That is why the Lib Dems are now a irrelevance.

An irrelevance that still has more seats in Parliament than the DUP? A party decimated yet still large enough numerically to hold the balance of power?

 

[Hamilton]

It didn't stop the Lib Dems.

If they had their time again, I'd imagine the Lib Dems would never have agreed to that u-turn. It has destroyed them. If Labour were to win - and I doubt they will - then a similar u-turn would destroy them also.

 

[Hamilton]

My issue with the loans is that they are acting like a tax against self and national-development. Go to university and advance yourself, potentially use your skills to build a business, employ people, contribute towards the exchequer with high personal taxation and maybe paying corporate tax. In return, we'll tax you more.

It not only acts as a disincentive towards individuals, it might also be holding us back as a nation.

However, I also appreciate that it has to be paid for, but the burden appears to be falling in the wrong place and at the wrong time. As has been mentioned, young people already face obstacles in getting onto the housing market. Life is not loaded in their favour at present.

 

[GT49er]

An irrelevance that still has more seats in Parliament than the DUP? A party decimated yet still large enough numerically to hold the balance of power?

Yes, an irrelevance.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Yes, an irrelevance.

You do make me laugh. It shouldn't matter what your politics are - if a party is capable of holding the balance of power then they are not irrelevant.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

except that absolute poverty has continued to reduce and relative poverty ticked up 1% largely due to the way its measured (average earning rise), not austerity.

• 55% of the seven million British people living in poverty are from working families. [source - Joseph Rowntree Foundation]
• 67% of the four million British children growing up in poverty are from working families. [source - End Child Poverty]
• Since 2010 the Tories have overseen the worst slump in the real value of workers' wages since records began [source - Evening Standard]. The situation is so bad that in all the developed world only workers in crisis-stricken Greece have had it as bad as the British.
• As well as overseeing the worst wage collapse ever, the Tories have also been ruthlessly slashing in-work social security (Working tax credits, housing benefit, child welfare payments, statutory sick pay, and parental leave pay) meaning not only are wages falling, but the social security top-ups for the working poor are being cut too.


So, the Tories have been repressing wages and rigging society even more in favour of the super-rich elitists and idle property speculating slumlords for the last seven years, and your telling me that austerity isn’t causing poverty?

 

[GT49er]

You do make me laugh. It shouldn't matter what your politics are - if a party is capable of holding the balance of power then they are not irrelevant.

They're not capable of holding anything, quite frankly.

 

[beorhthelm]

My issue with the loans is that they are acting like a tax against self and national-development. Go to university and advance yourself, potentially use your skills to build a business, employ people, contribute towards the exchequer with high personal taxation and maybe paying corporate tax. In return, we'll tax you more.

you know thats the model used for progressive taxation? earn more, pay more.

It not only acts as a disincentive towards individuals, it might also be holding us back as a nation.

and that is why many dislike current tax model.

looking at some of the points above, its clear that its the structure of the loans, in particular the interest, thats a problem. im not in favour of fees, but dont see any arguments to justify why half the youth population deserve to go to university for free while the other half go out to work. sure there are arguments for public funding further education they just dont seem to be made, all we hear "it cost too much! not fair!" as if no one values their education.

 

[Two Professors]

You do make me laugh. It shouldn't matter what your politics are - if a party is capable of holding the balance of power then they are not irrelevant.

As a Lib-Dem voter of many years standing I can assure you that the party will remain irrelevant,apart from local government,as long as it keeps on electing total flip-flops like Cable and Clegg as leaders.Consumate politicians indeed,totally unprincipled.

 

[nicko31]

If they had their time again, I'd imagine the Lib Dems would never have agreed to that u-turn. It has destroyed them. If Labour were to win - and I doubt they will - then a similar u-turn would destroy them also.

They had no choice, and it was the right thing to do.

These days seem like utopia compared to the Tories alone, a chaotic government in paralysis imposed by themselves.

 

[Hamilton]

you know thats the model used for progressive taxation? earn more, pay more.

I have no problem with earn more, pay more. I do have a problem with learn more, pay more.

 

[Pavilionaire]

As a Lib-Dem voter of many years standing I can assure you that the party will remain irrelevant,apart from local government,as long as it keeps on electing total flip-flops like Cable and Clegg as leaders.Consumate politicians indeed,totally unprincipled.

View attachment 94384

That is your opinion, it is not a matter of fact. I maintain - it's simple maths: if your total number of parliamentary seats gives you the balance of power you are not an irrelevance.

As for Clegg and Cable - when you are in coalition there are compromises. The Lib Dems should not have allowed the tuition fees fiasco to play out the way it did, but coalition with the Tories is never easy and there was never any question of the Lib Dems entering into dialogue with the Tories in 2017, even though they had greater numbers than the DUP.

 

[beorhthelm]

[etc]


So, the Tories have been repressing wages and rigging society even more in favour of the super-rich elitists and idle property speculating slumlords for the last seven years, and your telling me that austerity isn’t causing poverty?

yes. because its based on misleading statistics and measurements, leading to odd outcomes. example, wages rising put people in poverty as median earnings goes up so those that dont go up as much fall under threshold; falling wages reduce poverty as median income lowers (as seen in 2008-2011). if everyone's wages doubled, poverty would still be the same, expect more pensioners fall below the line. child deprivation is higher than anyone wants to see, however simply having a child if you are near the threshold or below puts a child into poverty, having another means two in poverty. no one held back wages, no favours for Victorian caricatures, just procreation created that statistic. trouble with poverty as we measure and report it, is it distorts the picture leading to misguided policy.

 

[brightn'ove]

Without going all woe is me, the problem isn't that there is a student loan at all (though ideally education should never be about pricing) it's that it is now three times as expensive as it was for people a year older than me (I was the first year of 9k tuition fees).
I stayed at University after my bachelors, and did a master's degree (mostly paid through a scholarship and the remaining money through my savings earned via part-time work). For my three years as an undergraduate I had amassed enough student debt so that I would've needed to earn £38,000 pa in my first real job to pay off the interest accrued each month (not even touching the money "borrowed"). I loved my time at Sussex and would not swap it for anything, but I am extremely lucky that my parents were able to support me to an extent, even though I was employed throughout both degrees.

Now I've found it ridiculously hard to get into my industry of choice, and am earning ridiculously less than the £38,000 needed almost 3 years ago. You are quite lucky in that paying off your loan is a possibility, I have always had a job alongside my studies, have never even taken an overdraft option let alone gone into one, and I'm still well over £50,000 in debt and rising.

Theresa can pretend that freezing tuition fees are a good thing but frankly, I don't want anyone in the future to have the spectre of debt (however, unlikely it is that it'll have to be repaid) hanging over their shoulders in exchange for taking a step into further education.

I was the last year of 3k fees. It is very unlikely that either of us will pay back our loans before they are written off (25 years for me, 30 for you), unless either of us really start to earn a big wedge. The repayment threshold is now 25,000 per year for 9k fee payers, whereas it is 17,700 for 3k fee payers. If you and I go our whole careers on the same salary (increasing at the same rate or whatever), but can never pay it back in full before the write off date, on the 3k repayment plan I will pay back far more than you will, and it will impact my take home pay for far longer period of time. Tuition fees are largely a red herring as most will never pay them back, in practice it's a tax on your income for most of the remainder of your working life, and those on the 9k fee plan will actually on average pay far less back.

Disclaimer: I think it should be free for everybody and raising tution fees was a terrible idea - but it's not as bad on the 9k fees as some people like to make out.

Edit: I have since read your other posts which I totally agree with, the spectre of debt is enough to put people off of going to university. But I think it should be the jobs of Colleges & 6th Forms to educate their students on how to afford university, as unless you have a family history of graduates, it's hard to know what to expect and it's a confusing mess. I was lucky enough to go to a good unversity but it was very difficult to find out what financial help I could get.

 

[Beanstalk]

I was the last year of 3k fees. It is very unlikely that either of us will pay back our loans before they are written off (25 years for me, 30 for you), unless either of us really start to earn a big wedge. The repayment threshold is now 25,000 per year for 9k fee payers, whereas it is 17,700 for 3k fee payers. If you and I go our whole careers on the same salary (increasing at the same rate or whatever), but can never pay it back in full before the write off date, on the 3k repayment plan I will pay back far more than you will, and it will impact my take home pay for far longer period of time. Tuition fees are largely a red herring as most will never pay them back, in practice it's a tax on your income for most of the remainder of your working life, and those on the 9k fee plan will actually on average pay far less back.

Disclaimer: I think it should be free for everybody and raising tution fees was a terrible idea - but it's not as bad on the 9k fees as some people like to make out.

I don't think the fees take anything away from the university experience, I loved every second of it.

As I said in my later post, I find the saddest thing about it not the details and the repayments in real terms but the idea that it does nothing more on an individual basis than act as a deterrent to go to university. As you said, we are both unlikely to ever pay it back so what is the real point in charging so much? The reality is that it's a classist policy and as my second post stated, that is my main issue. I have seen people, more than intelligent enough to go on to higher education, not go to university because they don't want the debt/it's too expensive etc.

On top of that, the talks surrounding the loan after it was clear it was making a huge loss put me in a position where potentially the fees may not be as harmless as made out. I had signed up (knowingly) for a big heap of debt on the pretence I'd never have to pay it back when I was 18 years old. I now have the worry of an ever rising debt (Currently around £2,000 pa added in interest) being called in if the government decide to sell it on.

It's not currently an awful deal, but it's the potentiality (more than implied in my experience by the behaviour of the Student Loan Company and the fact that the government have already started to sell off older student loans to private companies) of it becoming a debt that has to be paid back like a loan rather than on the terms I signed up on.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I don't think the fees take anything away from the university experience, I loved every second of it.

As I said in my later post, I find the saddest thing about it not the details and the repayments in real terms but the idea that it does nothing more on an individual basis than act as a deterrent to go to university. As you said, we are both unlikely to ever pay it back so what is the real point in charging so much? The reality is that it's a classist policy and as my second post stated, that is my main issue. I have seen people, more than intelligent enough to go on to higher education, not go to university because they don't want the debt/it's too expensive etc.

On top of that, the talks surrounding the loan after it was clear it was making a huge loss put me in a position where potentially the fees may not be as harmless as made out. I had signed up (knowingly) for a big heap of debt on the pretence I'd never have to pay it back when I was 18 years old. I now have the worry of an ever rising debt (Currently around £2,000 pa added in interest) being called in if the government decide to sell it on.

It's not currently an awful deal, but it's the potentiality (more than implied in my experience by the behaviour of the Student Loan Company and the fact that the government have already started to sell off older student loans to private companies) of it becoming a debt that has to be paid back like a loan rather than on the terms I signed up on.

How can they sell the debt on if it's agreed to be written off after X years? That would breach the original loan agreement and make the debt worthless. Wouldn't it?