Want your children to be able to go to uni?

[GreatAuntLoretta]

I am really feeling the urge to join the NUS protest against tuition fees on Thursday 9th December. Although my children are both under five, I am really really upset and annoyed to think that if they want to go to university in the future we will be very unlikely to be able to afford to send them. Who knows what the fees will be by then?! Also when my children are a little older I would really like to have the opportunity to retrain and do a degree. That would be completely off the cards. (angry)

Is anyone else with young children thinking of attending? It would be good to stick together with some other parents. A large group of parents will probably be a lot safer than a random woman with a buggy and a toddler in a mass crowd.

Who is with me?

Is there already a family protest group out there?

The middle class covers a vast range of earnings.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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

So what do you think it is about, claig?

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.

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'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.

"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.

Indeed. We spent beyond our means. Socialists often do that. They aren't like good parents who ensure they only spend what they have and now we're paying that price.

Also should the relative rich and educated (those who tend to go to university) be subsidised by the poor (average tax payers) or should people who want a university education pay for it themselves?

Totally agree with claig. This is not (at least not only) about the money. It is about privatisation of Universities with all its consequences. It is following the successful American model following the rules of the market.

It is largely an ideological debate on what kind of Universities we want, what function will they play in society, etc. It is not only debt that will keep people under control.

This is also the end of lecturers/researchers conception as civil servants. I do not see any space for a real concept of 'academic freedom' within Universities that are not public institutions anymore.

'Also should the relative rich and educated (those who tend to go to university) be subsidised by the poor (average tax payers) or should people who want a university education pay for it themselves?'

This is the ideological debate I was referring to... Do we want Universities that are part of our public services or not?
Xenia, you could also wonder, 'should the relative rich and educated (those who tend to send their kids to private education) pay with their taxes those who still want primary education provided by the State.

exactly camaleon, normal school education will be next. Free schools and commercial outfits will run eductaion. People will get vouchers and will need to top them up if they want more than a basic education.

This is an attack on all of the country's people, but as usual the main brunt is the middle class. Note how they keep rolling out working class truck drivers etc. to ask why they should subsidise students, when the truck drivers pay for all their own courses. They are trying divide and rule and pretending that they are on the side of the working class truck drivers in order to carry out what they want and to stop the middle class complaining.

"This is the ideological debate I was referring to... Do we want Universities that are part of our public services or not?"

Camaleon - So am I right in assuming the NUS 'graduate tax' is aimed at getting the graduates to pay for their HE, whilst keeping the Universities as public services (i.e lecturers keep their academic freedom)?

Claig,

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.?

Can you share the evidence for this, please?

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.

I don't think socialists generally want to restrict social mobility. They were wrong about the abolition of grammar schools, but the aim wasn't to restict social mobility, it was an idealogical attempt the make sure that everybody had the same opportunity by making them go to the same school and experience the same system. That doesn't mean everybody gets the same results and stays in the same socio-economic position.

RRocks

To divert the topic - the problem for the lib dem MPs is huge. If they vote for the policy they will condemn the lib dems to 100 years in the wilderness. The British Public barely have any confidence in politicians as it is. Neither of the other parties signed pledges, had their photos taken saying "I pledge to vote against the raising of tuition fees". Whether on not the policy is right, wrong, affordable, beneficial in the long run or whatever it would be immoral for any lib dem MP to vote FOR this policy. The changes will be passed either way - but if they vote yes England will instantly become a two political party country again.

Just had a chat with a colleague who got her degree for free here as an international student with no alternative at home, her country paid her fees. She is in a clerical job so earning a lower than average salary which didn't require a degree but she thinks it's the right thing to do as she met people in uni who dossed because there was nothing better to do. I pointed out that these proposals won't stop students like that and will penalise the sucessful and hardworking ones.

This is what should be looked at but they won't as it will have an detrimental affect of the local economy in these uni towns.

The student fee thinking started long before the bank bailouts

'In May 1996 Conservative Prime Minister John Major commissioned an inquiry led by Sir Ron Dearing to make recommendations into the future of funding of higher education in Britain and how it should develop over the next 20 years.

Following the publication of the Dearing Report into the future funding of higher education on 23 July 1997 then education secretary David Blunkett announced the introduction of means tested tuition fees to begin in September 1998.'

'I don't think socialists generally want to restrict social mobility. They were wrong about the abolition of grammar schools, but the aim wasn't to restict social mobility, it was an idealogical attempt the make sure that everybody had the same opportunity by making them go to the same school and experience the same system.'

what socialists say and what they do are two different things. We know that social mobility declined under Labour, despite all their protestations of how much they are in favour of it. Diane Abbott and others sent their children private and didn't have them experience ths same system as the rest of us.

I am not sure at all about the answer jackstarlightstarbright. But that proposal will certainly help to keep lecturers/academic life as something not solely governed by the laws of the market and the satisfied customer.

As for labour breaking promises, they all do. 'Call me David' said back in March that they would leave EMA alone, a blatent lie, so we have 2 parties with power lying to the public.

Does anyone know if they are including voting on abolishing EMA today as well?