Want your children to be able to go to uni?

Don't forget, guys, contact your MP here:

www.familiesagainstfees.co.uk/

Do it today - if enough parents write to their MPs, esp Lib Dems, things can still change!

Remember - every Lib Dem MP in this country is likely to lose their seat at the next election if this goes through.

I think I'd feel differently if the sums of money involved weren't eye watering. I mean, £9k per year on top of living expenses?

I recall the poll tax. All seemed fair and dandy on paper, all 'user pays' BUT- it's biggest failing was that where once you had a household of 4 paying say £1000 a year, suddenly that household's bill became £4000.

Hence the riots.

I'd also feel differently if this government had started by creating all the FE/ tech school /apprenticeship places that so many poorer DCs will now allegedly 'flock' to before placing university degrees beyond their reach.

I'd agree that the Labour idea of 50% of school leavers going to university was ludicrous BUT haven't most of us in professional careers seen our Certificate morph into a Diploma, then into a Degree-level entry? The idea mooted about 6 pages ago about people starting as the tea boy and working their way up just can't happen any more. Especially in times of rising unemployment- I recall when I was young and one of Maggie's Millions, the posh tea shops in our local market town wouldn't look at a potential waitress unless she'd graduated the grammar school 6th form. I am also shocked at the quality of university experience many of this '50%' are getting- an hour or 2 actual contact time a week. But fee charging won't suddenly improve that- what will happen is a group of prestigious unis will break away, continue to produce sought after graduates but now their intakes will exclusively be the privately educated DCs of the wealthy whose parents will pay their £21k upfront.

Maybe they'll call themselves the Russell Group or some such....

The best revolt would be for everyone to refuse to go and encourage employers to provide good apprenticeships instead,

I agree with you about the free market part of your comment - that's probably the main problem with the system as it is at the mo, that it enables pants courses to flourish at the samme time as good ones.

But then is one man's joke course another woman's dream course, say?

eg media studies - much derided, but then someone on here recently posted that most media jobs do go to people with media degrees, so not totally a waste of time?

etc.

And as an ex-History graduate, I am incensed by the fact that ALL arts/humanities degrees have in effect been judged worthless and not deserving of any subsidy.

Not for nothing were the Tories historically known as the 'Stupid Party'.

Even more so, when you consider that they've just announced they want everyone to leave school with 5 good GCSEs including a humanity subject. BUT they are withdrawing funding from humanities' degrees. So what about students who do well and want to continue these subjects up to university level? At what point do these subjects suddenly become worthless, then? And where are the teachers supposed to come from to teach these pupils, if all students are discouraged from studying humanities at university, and departments closed for lack of funding??

Talk about lack of joint-up thinking.

What a bunch of idiots.

jackstarbright - re the money not to go into the genera pot, I was referring to the oint on the link you sent that suggested the money be set asdide for a specific education fund.

nordic - not all that generation - i don't agree with it. i could stomach a smaller increase - say 1k but not 6k per year. disgusting.

i went to a demo with my young daughter, im fresh out of uni 2 years ago. Its disgusting that generation telling young people today to pay 9k when their education was free, an we will be paying for their pensions.

have you all emailed your MP's about this? They are due to vote on Thursday aren't they. Hopefully they have been reading these threads, but lets bung their inboxes up as well to show how much we care!

graduates

Thanks for your reply granted.

(and I actually agree with most of your points).

Except -:

"Should add, I like the fact that the money will be earmarked for education, not just disappear into the general pot."

Is that not a criticism of the 'graduate tax'?

I do wonder how it would work out having recent graduates paying a higher marginal tax rate than earlier grauduates and non-grauduates on the same salary?

And how long they can be expected to pay it for?

I'm guessing banks will factor the higher tax into mortgage calculations.

Of course a 'graduate tax' removes all the 'free market element' of the Universities getting the money upfront.

Which maybe is the real point?

x-post - agree with your second point also, dreamingofsun.

I agree - I don't think it's fair - but it's fairer than starting work with a fixed - and rising, as interest is added - 45K debt round your neck.

Totally agree with your point re Wales/Scotland.

It's going to result in huge bitterness in practice.

Free education for all is the best solution.

Obviously not all will take it up - and I'd like to see much better vocational training and apprenticeships, for the less academic.

But those exluded should be on suitability for academic study grounds not on wealth grounds.

also, i don't trust governments at all. i would be worried that they'd use this as an excuse to increase my tax whenever they felt like it

granted i'm not happy about the graduate tax either. in my current job there's a mix of graduates and non-graduates. why should i pay more tax than my colleagues just because i'm better qualified? I don't earn more.

it would also mean my husband, educated in wales, would pay less tax. despite the fact that he earns way more than i do. but i know that is really another topic altogether.

Should add, I like the fact that the money will be earmarked for education, not just disappear into the general pot.

Thanks for posting that, jackstarbright.

I personally would prefer education fees to be 100% funded by the state (maintenance costs only for the v poorest), as before, but failing that, then yes, I think a graduate tax is far fairer than what the Condems propose -

(a) because it affects all graduates equally - those with rich parents can't buy them out of it,
(b) because it means those who can afford to pay most pay most,
(c) beause thereare no upfront costs to put people off,
(d) because it means those who are going into low-earning but socially vital careers like teaching are not put off, and
(e) because there is no fixed amount of 'debt' that graduates face, which I think is the real problem with the currently proposed system; instead graduates will just face a slightly higher rate of tax.

Thank you, dreamingofsun.

My dad, also a long-term conservative, is as horrified as you.

It's not just the Lib Dems losing votes over this.

A good point was made on the Radio 4 Friday night comedy show a few weeks ago. This introduces a dangerous precedent. up till now we have not expected people to pay back for something that may (or may not) benefit them in the future.

For example. Tony Blair makes millions as a speaker/envoy/shiny person. The only reason he can make so much money is because he was PM, a job paid for by the British taxpayer. Surely he should pay back a significant part of his earnings because he would not be able to be a missionaire were it not for the British taxpayer?

A better, and slightly less controversial example. When MPs are in parliament they can, famously, claim mortgage relief on their second homes as part of their expenses. When they are voted out leave Parliament, why should they be allowed to profit from this? Surely the second homes should then be sold off and the proceeds returned to the nation? Why should shiny Dave be allowed to rent his second home in London, earning a large rental income, when this home was paid for by the taxpayer?

I can't see MPs giving up their nice little pension earners like that. Their argument is that they are doing a vital "job". But so do our graduates. Yes, some of them will earn a lot, but not all will be bankers, lawyers and doctors. A large percentage will be the teachers, nurses, the admin staff that keep the country running. If we drastically reduce the pool of educated workforce, we will be left having to import those with the necessary skills. I imagine the BNP and their cronies will have a field day with that.

good point made on another thread. society needs people with degrees so everyone should pay a small amount towards the cost - in the same way we do for the NHS, courts, sixth form colleges, unemployment benefit and lots of other services.

i personally don't benefit from the NHS at the moment or courts or that many other public services - but accept that for the benefit of the country i must pay towards the cost of them.

why should our future graduates be singled out to bear such a huge burden of debt for the previous government's financial incompetence. this is so wrong - and i speak as a previously committed conservative

@granted, ampere, riven, christmaseve and BoffinMum.

What's your opinion of the NUS Blueprint alternative to Tuition Fees.

Ed Miliband seems to favour a similar approach. Ed Miliband on Tuition Fees.

I'm interested to know if you support these proposals and why?

ampere - think you have the Tories' aims down nicely - full-speed back to the Victorian era.

Trouble with hoping we'd all happily return to 19th C style serfdom is that they forget these dastardly plebs NOW HAVE THE VOTE.

They also have education, and the internet and are unlikely to just meekly say 'ok, sir'.

What a load of idiots.

christmaseve - you're welcome. Made my blood boil too. I recommend you view scaryteacher's later post on the other thread - unintentionally hilarious.

No point getting upset by people like that.

Crimbo- their 'problem' is what I heard referred to recently is their 'experience gap'. The people blue-sky thinking these projects have no idea how the vast majority of their electorate live. They consider themselves middle class, indeed, the 'squeezed middle class'. But most of them are public school educated, free university degree holding millionaires.

They neither know nor care about the rest of us because they don't need to.

MY tuppence worth is have they considered the effect this will have on their beloved house prices? When no one can afford to save for a deposit because the moment their salary climbs high enough to be able to even think about saving, in comes their debt payment. OR- and here's a thought- maybe the plan is that the wealthy at the top of teh pile, (those who'll pay their DC's fees up front, congratulating themselves on how much cheaper it is than public school) will snap up all the first time buyer homes and rent them to the young adults on 60 day safety of tenure? THAT'LL stabilise society nicely, won't it?

And the other thing will be the destruction of any feeling of moral duty where one might feel that if society has substantially funded 'my' teaching or nursing degree, I repay society by working in that public sector. I wouldn't be feeling THAT if I'd paid for it myself!

Boffinmum, yes thats exactly what this is - a punishment for daring to better yourself, get an education and enable you to contribute more to society. They should know their place and get back down the mines or polish some upper class toffs shoes, no doubt.

I think we should all get a stick and hit our MPs with it until they learn!

Honestly this is becoming another Iraq, and this government is not even 8 months in! When will they learn to listen?? -that is the problem!