Want your children to be able to go to uni?

"When the neo-liberal economic model comprehensively failed in 2008 there was a brief moment when they might have, collectively, have fashioned a proper response...They failed to do so and a solution now lies beyond grasp of any national group of policymakers because each is held hostage by the threat of retaliation from 'the markets' aka those who caused the crisis and are benefiting from it"

'The markets' is a pretty meaningless term. You might as well say capitalism, western democracy or even perhaps humanity.

The truth is national governments are gripping onto this 'neo-liberal economic model' for dear life - because that's the system that most benefits all of us. And soveriegn debt isn't owed to the bankers (well most of it isn't) it's owed to all of us (our pension funds, savings, charities endowment funds, local authority surpluses....).

And very little of our annual deficit (rather than our national debt) is because of the bank bailout. The reason we have a deficit is because we spend more on public services than we get in tax income.

it's about following the American model, keeping the people under control and in debt, and restricting social mobility, just as the abolition of grammar schools by the socialists also was. The English people have to suffer it, unlike any other people in Europe.

Good luck to anyone protesting today. DD was trying to persuade me to get on a train with her this morning, none of her friends were interested!!! It's a four hour journey, we should have planned it in advance.

I fully intend to join a protest in the future as I think there will be a few more. Even if this is passed today, it won't be the end of it.

It looks good on the balance sheet, instead of the money going out as a revenue expense, it will be shown as an asset, a debtor, even thought half of it will have to be written off long after these lot are kicked out of parliament.

So what do you think it is about, claig?

As grannie and jackstarbright have said, they expect 50% of the debt never to be repaid. It is not about the money.

'In other words - students are paying for the bank bailouts.'

no, because the student fees policy was started long before the bank bailouts. All that has happened is the inevitable increase in the fees, but this was always intended.

Here is an interesting bit of analaysis of the current situation from a poster on the Guardian message boards - actually in response to the Irish situation, but the analysis covers the situation here with student fees too.

Apologies for quting it in full, but I thought it was worth it:

"It t doesn't really make sense to talk about these things in terms of countries. What is happening is a consequence of the financial globalization which policymakers and pundits presented to us as if it were a force of nature rather than being a consequence of the policies which they, collectively, chose to pursue (egged on by a significant number of voters). When the neo-liberal economic model comprehensively failed in 2008 there was a brief moment when they might have, collectively, have fashioned a proper response. They failed to do so and a solution now lies beyond grasp of any national group of policymakers because each is held hostage by the threat of retaliation from 'the markets' aka those who caused the crisis and are benefiting from it. Thus the privately accrued debt of banks has been transferred to nations as a 'sovereign debt crisis' and this in turn is being privatised to individuals as tax payments and as individual hypothecated payments for what were formerly public goods (e.g., in the UK, increased student fees or train fares). As individuals we are now getting seriously pissed off, and worried - but if our response is to blame other countries rather than the systemic interests which have caused this situation then we both miss the point and miss any chance of, even now, solving the root causes of the problem."

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/07/irish-bailout-british-banks

In other words - students are paying for the bank bailouts.

Newwave - Lol - the upper classes already dominate the top universities - they don't need Cameron's help.

Not wrong there, Toffeenosedgit has a foot in the top unis from the day he is born.

Newwave - Lol - the upper classes already dominate the top universities - they don't need Cameron's help.

Anyway Cameron's going to want a better showing than labour managed in the international education league tables.

He'll put his career before any upper class mates - to be sure.

Gordon Brown didn't increase taxes on the super rich, the bankers and corporations, he didn't regulate bankers sufficiently, he even allowed them to take bonuses after the state bailout. But he introduced all sorts of stealth taxes aimed at the middle classes.

I don't agree with the policy but I think all this supposed hatred of those on lower income accusations being made by people is a tad silly.

It would be if every previous Tory government had not despised (not hated) the poor and vulnerable. This is not my theory this is fact. Maybe "call me Dave" will be different but somehow i doubt it.

the middle classes are always hit. They are the milch cow.

they all keep telling us about social mobility and how much they want to encourage it. How will fees of £9000 help social mobility? I'm sure they will find a way to explain it in their election manifestos.

The middle class covers a vast range of earnings.

Nor do I, Jackstarlightstarbright. Just raise taxes for higher earners, graduates or not! Loads of people earn more than graduates. I know people with degrees working as carers on £12,000 a year, gardeners, carpenters ...

However, just because graduates often can't get jobs that reward them for their 3/4 years' study, that doesn't mean degrees are worthless. Having a degree improves the quality of your life, means you are probably healthier (therefore less of a burden on the NHS), will probably live longer (and buy more mangetout)... Sad but true.

I don't like the new proposals I think university education should be free but I think what the Government is trying to do is to shift the financial burden of higher education away from central Government and onto students. I don't agree with the policy but I think all this supposed hatred of those on lower income accusations being made by people is a tad silly.

the lower orders are all of the poor and the middle class. The really poor will receive subsidies, the middle class will receive none.

The whole pupose of the raised fees is to discourage the "lower orders" from going to uni all else by the tories and Fib Dems is bullshit

"BTW, just seen on BBC News that half of all students will never pay back their loans. So how can that be good for the economy? Who does that benefit?"

Grannie
That's just an assumption they've built into the calculations really. It's assuming half the graduates will be paying all the fees back (they hope).

I think that's one reason it's seen as 'progressive'. The graduate tax appears to take more from the lower earner and less from the higher. I really don't get why the students prefer it.

I hope you're wrong, RRocks. But luckily it's not the money that attracts people into teaching. However, we might have to lose some of our managers .

There aren't enough jobs to go around. Because of globalisation, they have exported our jobs.

They haven't improved education, they have dumbed it down. At least the Tories will increase standards. But they have made it more expensive to get a university education and inevitably that will mean that the number of people getting degrees will fall.

I don't see how it benefits anyone, not even the rich. After all, no matter how much money you have, you still need well-educated staff to run your country seat. It's so hard to get the plastic surgeons, clothes designers, dieticians, interior designers, financial advisors that one needs these days, what!

I think it's fair to say that Labour started students having to make a contribution to university funding but that what is proposed now is quite a departure from that in that they intend to remove existing government funding from universities that has been there for decades, and make students replace it.

You might be right that Labour would have done the same, but we'll never know. They mght have had different priorities from the Tories, as Scotland and Wales seem to have at present. However, if the bill passes into law, Scotland and Wales might follow suit in a year or two because inequality of funding between the countries will cause more problems for the unis in Scotland and Wales. A bit like Scottish football clubs can't afford to pay for expensive players on the transfer market, Scottish and Welsh unis won't be able to pay for the better staff if they are less well funded than English unis and their ratings will suffer.

I agree with you. Divide and rule divides us into Labour vs Tory, when it is all one policy.

It benefits the rich that the rest of the people are burdened by debt, whether they repay it or not, it stops them being free.