Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To think students are more angry that their votes have been stolen than they are about fees ?

27 replies

enabledebra · 01/12/2010 22:53

And I don't blame them, what's a policy when compared to the principle of suffrage. When you look at the placards and listen to the sentiments I think it goes without saying that they are, of course, strongly opposed to the fee changes and this is why they voted libdem en masse in the first place. BUT the anger and protest seems to me to be much more about their sharp lesson as to the pitiful state of democracy when someone can with impunity can knowingly lie to secure your vote, YOUR VOTE FFS!!! Yes, we all know it's always been thus but not so obviously? I know that's why I'm supporting their protests regardless of my views on tuition fees. Is this the common focus that makes the student protests as dangerous for the government as the poll tax IMO. I blummin' well hope so.

OP posts:

MrManager · 01/12/2010 23:43

You have a good point, and I hadn't noticed that angle.

The media seems to have a subtle 'Oh, look at the students, they just don't want an end to their cushty lifestyle' vibe under the reports.

I wonder if people would accept such a patronising tone if the reports went with 'Oh look at the students, they just want the politicians to keep their promises'.

Original poster

enabledebra · 02/12/2010 00:42

Absolutely they would not. I work in HE and the conversations I've had with students are initially about fees but when they get to the crux they are about lies. THAT is why they tell me they are on the streets. They talk about fees (and for the avoidance of doubt they are well informed)but the real anger is reserved for the lies and for their sense of having been exploited.

OP posts:

RedSuedeShoes · 02/12/2010 00:44

They did not lie because they did not get voted into power. Why does everyone forget this and think the Lib Dem's can have all of their mainfesto when they had the least votes. The vast majority - those that voted conservative and labour - basically voted for tuition fee rises!

ICouldHaveWrittenThis · 02/12/2010 00:51

But a clause of their coalition agreement was that the LibDems would not vote on this matter (so says Vince Cable)

fucking ridiculous.

This bill can NOT be passed.

also - It'll be 2 generations before the LibDems get so much as a whiff at power... fucking wankers. ]]

Original poster

enabledebra · 02/12/2010 00:55

How is that not a lie? They pledged to vote AGAINST any steps to increase fees.
No way out:

OP posts:

TechLovingDad · 02/12/2010 00:58

The Lib Dems have made themselves a total laughing stock. How they can expect any of their voters to take them seriously again, is beyond me.

WingDad · 02/12/2010 00:58

I do feel sorry for students in general, it can't be easy for those who struggle financially but really want to strive educationally (which I think shouldn't be obstructed by how much money you have or will be earning in the future).

And I also feel a bit sorry for students (and others) who voted Lib Dem, this must be one massive kick in the teeth for them.

ICouldHaveWrittenThis · 02/12/2010 00:58

they said they would vote against in their election pledge.

In their coalition agreement they agreed to abstain (the FUCKERS).. also, what the HELL is Vince Cable up to?

TechLovingDad · 02/12/2010 01:01

Isn't he busy writing a policy he won't vote on?

Original poster

enabledebra · 02/12/2010 01:09

Yes, apparently he is. What does THAT tell us about the value of our vote. What exactly are we without a real vote?

OP posts:

spookycharlotte121 · 02/12/2010 01:12

I was planning to return to uni to complete my degree... this will be totally impossible if tuition fee's do rise to tthat level. Im already upto my eye balls in student debt and dont feel I can take on any more. Its a huge let down. The lib dems are a joke imo!

I cant imagine what a worry it must be for people planning to do a 7 year course. Their debt is going to be enormous and whilst theyre going to be earning a decent wage in their profession ie architecht or doctor but still starting your career with 100k of debt is unimaginable. (im including their maintenance loans in that figure)

ICouldHaveWrittenThis · 02/12/2010 01:22

spooky, I completely agree..

Not only do current A'level students have to face the possibility of fees tripling, but undergrads now have the decision to make about continuing on with their PhD, Architecture, Medical degree, Veterinary degree..... What the hell do the govt think they are doing? It's one thing doing a sociology dgree over 3 years, but what about the vocational degrees... does this govt WANT to be sourcing all it's intelligent/educated people from outside the UK? Because that's what;s going to happen.

I also see many many many families with teenage kids moving to Wales if they can possibly manage it.

I know someone wanting to do a masters.. she can do it this year for "2k, or can wait until next year when she might get funding and try then....

TechLovingDad · 02/12/2010 01:26

Must be bad if families are moving to Wales

Get an apprenticeship as a plumber or plasterer. Much more of a guaranteed return than a degree, anyway.

LaWeaselMys · 02/12/2010 02:16

I an angry about both. There is an academic year between DP and I, he had to pay top up fees for his degree and I didn't. The difference in our debts is massive, and our combined student debt is going to be following us for a long time and hamper any efforts to buy a house for even longer than the 20yrs it'll take us to save a deposit.

I also voted Lib Dem and was really angry to find out that before Clegg had even started making campaign promises it had been decided that they wouldn't stick by it in a coalition situation.

I am livid about both, and I wish the rest of the country would actually make the effort to understand how much of an impact both things gave.

Firstly that pushing up our student debt levels is going to divide our society on inherited wealth lines even more, something we've spent 100yrs trying to change.

Secondly, our democracy is totally meaningless.

TechLovingDad · 02/12/2010 02:28

We should have more protesting, in this country. At least the French government seem scared of their voters protesting. not sure how much it influences their decisions though.

frakkinup · 02/12/2010 06:00

The French govt are scared of protestors not because they'll necessarily lose the votes but because of the spectres of riots. The UMP are screwed in the next election anyway because the Socialists and the TUs are telling everyone the money is there and people want to believe the good news. So the Socialists will probably get in and spend lots of money that isn't there to keep people happy. Now that's how to lie to get votes if the Lib Dems want lessons. Not that the UMP are much better but at least they're facing up to the fiscal reality and trying to do something by raising the retirement age.

As it is the Lib Dems were acting a leetle bit irresponsibly when they promised to vote against tuition fee rises in the first place. Admittedly they didn't exactly have access to the balance sheet when they were writing their manifesto but they (well, Vince) has probably had a brief and shocking introduction to reality and realised that cutsw are going to have to be made, HE can be funded by borrowing (sound principle there ) so it's not really a cut/exclusive/disadvantaging anyone (once again, ).

Not saying it's right but I see how they're justifying it over sectors where if you withdraw the money then it's gone for good.

pantomimecow · 02/12/2010 08:33

'As it is the Lib Dems were acting a leetle bit irresponsibly when they promised to vote against tuition fee rises in the first place. Admittedly they didn't exactly have access to the balance sheet when they were writing their manifesto '

why wouldn't thy have access to information about public finances??

sarah293 · 02/12/2010 08:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

frakkinup · 02/12/2010 08:46

They would have had access to anything that was publicly available but that's not the full picture. They wouldn't have had access to the all the workings and the caveats, unpublished budgets, future spending commitments etc. Part of the reason I think they didn't know everything relates to the new transparency measures.

It reminds me of the 'yes, prime minister' episode where the Civil Service are working out how to get their payrise without people knowing in a way.

wubblybubbly · 02/12/2010 08:48

The Lib Dems and the Tories didn't shut up about the public finances during the run up to the GE (although admittedly at that point they disagreed wholeheartedly on how to tackle the problem )

Now it seems they're saying 'Well actually we were talking out of our arses, we had no idea what the situation really was'.

Whatever, they were lying then or lying now. The only surprise is people believed them.

ccpccp · 02/12/2010 08:50

Clegg didnt knowingly lie though did he. He's had to change his position due to the limitations of coalition.

He has now apologised for this.

The LibDems were not voted in. They are a minor 3rd party with a promise-the-world manifesto. If students want something to be angry about, it should be anger at themselves for switching their vote on the basis of a couple of live TV debates.

wubblybubbly · 02/12/2010 08:53

He wasn't without options though. The fact is power matters more to him than his word or his (apparent) political beliefs.

ccpccp · 02/12/2010 08:55

"The only surprise is people believed them." - wubblybubbly

After 13 years of spin and lies under labour, the public wanted a change I think.

I dont think anyone is lying in the coalition. I think the harsh truth about the state of the country caught both parties by surprise, once the true figures came to light. It is to their credit that they are taking the deficit by the horns, making themselves easy targets for the naysayers who put the country into this position in the first place.

wubblybubbly · 02/12/2010 08:58

I don't disagree with you, people voted against Labour, I think a donkey and an ass could've won it. Come to think of it.....

Original poster

enabledebra · 02/12/2010 09:28

ccpccp- the Lidems were still whoring around universities telling students they would scrap fees if they got into power and would vote against any rise if they didn't win, when they had in fact decided to abandon the pledge as it would cause them a 'headache' if they got a chance of power.

"On tuition fees, we should seek agreement on part-time students and leave the rest.
"We will have clear yellow water with the other [parties] on raising the tuition fee cap, so let us not cause ourselves more headaches." confidential Libdem negotiation document dated March 16th 2010...

OP posts:

Flip

1 2