Students Protests - University Fees

[EggFriedRice]

I absolutely applaud the protests by young students against the rise in university fees, why should they put up with the blatant lies by the Liberal Democrats, I voted for them, I believed what they told me during the run up to the election, now I feel betrayed, like so many other voters, how could they say one thing and then do the opposite? I witnessed today a demonstration by ordinary young people who will be affected by the increase in university fees, I witnessed the heavy police presence, the batons ready to charge, the police filming ordinary young people who have been betrayed, I witnessed the sad state of the UK,

Nope, not broke either. In fact, it would be a lot better off if the tax avoiders like Vodaphone, Phillip Green and Lord Ashroft coughed up but, they are Tory donors it's unlikely to happen in a hurry.

Ok so if we aren't broke why the cuts?

"Ok so if we aren't broke why the cuts?"

Because we've become used to living a lifestyle beyond our means. £1 out of every £4 the Government spends is being borrowed, that is unsustainable and that is why the Government is having to make cuts. Quite simply the Govenment is not earning enough to keep on spending how it has been, it's been doing the Government equivalent of living off of credit cards and I think everyone knows how sensible that is...

I would disagree with you on that point. Simple maths says the liabilities of the UK exceed the assets right now. Therefore a cash flow problem, cuts need to be made in order to meet repayments. If the UK was not broke cuts would not have to be made as payments could occur in the natural course of business

The answer to 'why the cuts' is broader than just money. The cuts to university funding will not save money in the short term, and possibly never will. They do mark a fundamental shift in this country's thinking about the relationship between education and the individual. Some would say (and I am one of those people) that while there is certainly a cash flow problem, the atmosphere of crisis is being used opportunistically to justify policies which are ideological in nature and will do nothing to help balance the books.

Tax owed by Tory donor Lord Aschroft £127 million

Tax avoided by Tory donor Phillip Green £300 million

Tax avoided by Vodaphone £6 billion

Estimated tax avoidance by UK companies per year, in the region of £25 billion.

It's a bit naieve to say if your liabilities exceed your assets you are broke. How many have negative equity in their houses and yet still manage to live a reasonably decent lifestyle?

The cuts have far more to do with the Tory ideology than the actual financial situation. How else would you explain the UK loaning Ireland more or less the exact amount saved by the tax cuts this year? If we didn't have it in the first place, how on earth could we then loan out money we don't have?

"Therefore a cash flow problem, cuts need to be made in order to meet repayments."

No....

Meeting the repayments, the interest on our loans, is costing the country about £40 billion a year, 3% of GDP.

Last years budget deficit was £156 billion, this year they're aiming for £140 billion.

Even if we had no debt, none at all, we'd still have a deficit of around about £100 billion this year.

The problem is not the debt, the problem is not the repayment of that debt, the problem is that we're spending more than we can afford to.

"If the UK was not broke cuts would not have to be made as payments could occur in the natural course of business"

Putting aside for a minute the fact that we're not broke.

As said above the problem is not the payments, if they were gone we'd still be living beyond our means.

That is why we're having to cut.

Put plain and simply the Government is spending far more than it earns and that has absolutely nothing to do with the current debt.

"Estimated tax avoidance by UK companies per year, in the region of £25 billion."

The estimated UK deficit for 2010 is nearly 6 times that at £140 billion.

Even if we completely eradicated tax avoidance we'd still be living beyond our means.

Even if by some miracle we managed to wipe out all the debt we've built up and stopped all tax evasion we'd still be spending more than we earn.

That is the problem.

"How else would you explain the UK loaning Ireland more or less the exact amount saved by the tax cuts this year? If we didn't have it in the first place, how on earth could we then loan out money we don't have?"

No one will loan money to Ireland except at very high Interest rates.

We can borrow money at low interest rates.

We borrow the money at a low rate and then relend it to Ireland at a higher rate than we got the money at yet at a lower rate than Ireland could get it itself.

So Ireland pay us more than enough money to cover our interest payments.

So our Government profits.

Plus we avoid the misery and collapse in tax revenues that a complete financial disaster in Ireland would entail, a win win situation. Well as long as Ireland repays us, and if they don't we'll have a lot more to worry about than the money we lent them.

" a bit naieve to say if your liabilities exceed your assets you are broke. How many have negative equity in their houses and yet still manage to live a reasonably decent lifestyle?"

Slug- you have made the classic mistake of confusing debt and deficit.

Whilst it is true that one may live a reasonable life in a negative equity house: it's when your mortgage payments and other outgoings exceed your income that you may lose your home.

But deficit or no deficit the Tory government are notorious for making cuts to public spending it's part of their ideology. The worldwide financial problems are very convenient for them to justify what they do anyway.

I didn't expect them to be so harsh so soon. I am shocked and frankly quite worried for the future.

I always said that I was so pleased to have raised DD under a labour government, especially as a single parent. Just a shame that they are affecting us so much now that she is about to become and adult who wants to study.

Christmaseve - it's true that Tories and the Liberal section of the LibDems are ideologically against a big state.

But equally, I wonder how much of Bairs' Education spend, and New Labours' war on child poverty wasn't an ideological excuse for growing the state.

Certainly with hindsight Labour appear to achieved less in 13 years than they promised.

And whilst the withdrawal of programs such as BFS, CTC and EMA have caused pain - they have also raised eyebrows, as people realise how inefficiently Labour spent our tax revenue.

slug I hadn't realised Lord Ashcroft, Phillip Green and Vodafone paid taxes during the Labour government years - you've really opened my eyes!

Can anyone here give an actual figure of the deficit??? Trust me even if Voda blah blah had paid it would not even make a dent. I work in the financial sector and trust me broke is broke no matter how you look at it. Stop spending more than you earn!! Where do you think the government gets the money from to finance all of it? So for everyone that is moaning about the tution increase but is sitting with a massive credit card debt and a BMW on lease please don't want to be the victim. For those that spent sensibly, well done , pity there weren't more of us, our children would have had a better future

"Can anyone here give an actual figure of the deficit???"

As said above this year it looks like it will be £140 billion, so yes all of those companies alleged unpaid tax bills are a drop in the ocean.

"I work in the financial sector and trust me broke is broke no matter how you look at it. Stop spending more than you earn!"

Spending more than you earn does not mean you are broke. You become broke when you can't pay the price of your debts, and right now we are not there. Greece and Ireland sailed close to it but even they didn't get there.

"The worldwide financial problems are very convenient for them to justify what they do anyway."

I think the financial problems have finally given the political parties an excuse to hide behind to get the budget deficit challenged and to make sure that we live within our means.

Every Government of recent years has spent most of their time running at a deficit, they've all been at it. And this way they don't have to admit that they were wrong and can just try to fix it.

This is all just an excuse to put the boot in to all but the rich. There is no one way out of any crisis - and what is occurring with the student fees has nothing to do with servicing any debt or deficit, as the money is still going to be loaned from the government and chunks of it will never be repaid. Make no mistake - this is an ideological onslaught by a group of fanatics who are obsessed with privatisation (and feathering their nests), while veryone else goes to hell.

See the Lords have passed it .

Telsa that is just laughable. Assume you have been in government?

Sorry Badger please go recheck you figures on the defcit, you are........a Bit off

Tpm it is not really a cabinet secret that the Tories are invested in privatisation and expanding the imposition of market logic.

No, no I'm not. This years deficit is an estimate and it will be about £140 billion.

The budget guessed it at £149 billion to be more accurate:
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/7510939/Budget-2010-key-points.html

What have I got wrong?

Are you confusing the debt and the deficit?

Telsa you TEACH in a university? This is well and truly scary

yes, I am a professor with many publicatiosn and an international reputation. Why is that scary? Anyway, for the more serious amongst you, read this fantastic analysis on Lenin's Tomb.
extract:
'The current reforms advance the trend of marketisation in higher education, but are also partially about redividing the educated to reproduce the old elitism. First, the major beneficiaries of these changes will be the 'ivy league' institutions. The Browne reforms are specifically designed to advance 'competition' within universities so that some will inevitably fail to attract funding and students. Thus we'll have a two-tiered, or multi-tiered system, and an elite will be created within the university system. Second, it makes higher education a much more welcoming opportunity for the rich than for the poor, having already deprived working class kids of the financial support needed to take the intermediary step between secondary school and higher education, that being A Levels. Third, it introduces a certain amount of segregation, making certain that those of the working class who do opt for higher education will be compelled to select a subject designed to maximise value and improve their returns, which will probably mean a 'STEM' subject, while the wealthy will continue to choose subjects that motivate them, and that engage their intelligence, at leisure. If you turn higher education into a commodity, whereby you have to calculate whether your degree is worth incurring £40,000 of debt for, that means you have to be sure to pick a subject that guarantees the most remuneration in a situation where the premium on a degree is falling rapidly, not necessarily the one that is best. There is more, but the cumulative result of all this will be to confirm the richest, who perform best in such systems, in their belief that they are uniquely, supremely talented, and the majority of the working class that they lack the intelligence and motivation required to get to the top.

This is a form of social engineering, deliberately producing elitism for the benefit of capital, supported by a prejudice that this is natural, efficient, and will ultimately benefit the majority by harnessing and rewarding the talents of the minority. If it is allowed to continue, then it will sustain a much more savagely unequal social order built on wealth for the few and austerity for the many.'

leninology.blogspot.com/2010/12/no-confidence.html#disqus_thread

"read this fantastic analysis on Lenin's Tomb"

It's worth pointing out, if it's not abundantly clear, that that's a Marxist web site and will therefore be as unbiased on this proposal as a Fascist web site would be on the subject of immigration.

Somewhat amusingly the author admits that he can't resist money so his Marxist principles don't run that far below the surface.

I do actually think that he makes some good points. However using Marxism to try and fight these proposals just makes you so easy for the proponents of this to dismiss