Labour to cut Tuition Fees...
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Welshbeef said:
Utter madness.
Labour: Utter Madness Matters.Oh and lastly the money will not go to the universities instead general treasury as such it will go towards defecit reduction and cause Unis going further backwards.
Real solution is scrap fees altogether and it comes out of income tax it is the countries future so we all invest in it. Oh and the inherent issue with the current setup in that most never pay off the debt remains so general taxation pay for it anyway.
BlackLabel said:
Pro student groups claim their 'vote' could influence up to 10 seats.
Im not getting this, the coalition set a cap and went for £9k, its the Universities themselves that decide the tuition fees, nowt to do with the government.bbc said:
The research, which tracked student voting patterns since 1997, says there was a surge to the Liberal Democrats in 2001, 2005 and 2010 because they promised to scrap tuition fees.
But the trebling of fees in England by the coalition has damaged both Liberal Democrat and Conservative prospects among students, say the authors.
They predict a student swing to Labour at the 2015 general election.
The report draws on figures from the British Election Study which suggest the proportion of students who would vote Liberal Democrat dropped from 44% in 2010 to 13% in early 2014.
Despite students making up only 3% of the population, they could affect the result in about 10 seats, particularly as the opinion polls are very close, it says.
Prof Stephen Fisher of Trinity College Oxford, who carried out the analysis, said it was "remarkable" the extent to which changes in the student vote had reflected party policies on student finance. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30252713But the trebling of fees in England by the coalition has damaged both Liberal Democrat and Conservative prospects among students, say the authors.
They predict a student swing to Labour at the 2015 general election.
The report draws on figures from the British Election Study which suggest the proportion of students who would vote Liberal Democrat dropped from 44% in 2010 to 13% in early 2014.
Despite students making up only 3% of the population, they could affect the result in about 10 seats, particularly as the opinion polls are very close, it says.
Prof Stephen Fisher of Trinity College Oxford, who carried out the analysis, said it was "remarkable" the extent to which changes in the student vote had reflected party policies on student finance. "
Du1point8 said:
Im not getting this, the coalition set a cap and went for £9k, its the Universities themselves that decide the tuition fees, nowt to do with the government.
Problem is most courses cost more or at this level. Of course its also do you want to go to a Uni which let's say engineering and you elect to choose the 17th best in the country as its the cheapest yet the best tuition kit and also key to when you go for jobs where did you study and what did you study.
Kind of like you could buy a Kia Pecanto instead of a LaFerrari as they are both cars both get you from A to B
. In 1998 the blessed Gordon Brown decided he could buy shines things today by ripping the profits out of pensions.
And now we have a black hole in pensions that we cannot afford to fill.
Now in 2015 we have a similar proposal that just proves that they should never be trusted with power again.
Are they thick or deluded?
And now we have a black hole in pensions that we cannot afford to fill.
Now in 2015 we have a similar proposal that just proves that they should never be trusted with power again.
Are they thick or deluded?
cymtriks said:
They could easily afford to cut the fees to zero and reinstate grants if they stopped sending kids to do degrees that neither the kids nor the nation benefit from.
Circa 3% go to uni.
Paid for by grants.
It worked before but of course they can't possibly admit that this was better and how would they hide youth unemployment and what about gloating about how much standards have improved....
Oh well.
and never mind the fact that a lot of the roles where Degrees are now required are considerably more complex than the 1960s and 70s versions of those jobs ... Circa 3% go to uni.
Paid for by grants.
It worked before but of course they can't possibly admit that this was better and how would they hide youth unemployment and what about gloating about how much standards have improved....
Oh well.
Rovinghawk said:
mph1977 said:
and never mind the fact that a lot of the roles where Degrees are now required are considerably more complex than the 1960s and 70s versions of those jobs ...
Media studies? Sociology?IEng/ CEng level engineering roles
The current system imposed by the coalition is costing more than the one it replaced. It was a pathetically stupid move, one that was political. The only losers were the poor. The fallout from the present system will be with us for decades.
The whole further education system needs revamping, the most important aspect being to take control away from governments.
The idea of just STEM being valuable to this country is wrong of course. Fashion brings in a fair bit.
Once the various governments see education as something they can exploit, all sense goes out the window.
The whole further education system needs revamping, the most important aspect being to take control away from governments.
The idea of just STEM being valuable to this country is wrong of course. Fashion brings in a fair bit.
Once the various governments see education as something they can exploit, all sense goes out the window.
Derek Smith said:
The current system imposed by the coalition is costing more than the one it replaced. It was a pathetically stupid move, one that was political. The only losers were the poor. The fallout from the present system will be with us for decades.
The whole further education system needs revamping, the most important aspect being to take control away from governments.
The idea of just STEM being valuable to this country is wrong of course. Fashion brings in a fair bit.
Once the various governments see education as something they can exploit, all sense goes out the window.
Under the present system, graduates on low incomes do not repay their loans. After 30 years they are written off.The whole further education system needs revamping, the most important aspect being to take control away from governments.
The idea of just STEM being valuable to this country is wrong of course. Fashion brings in a fair bit.
Once the various governments see education as something they can exploit, all sense goes out the window.
NailedOn said:
Derek Smith said:
The current system imposed by the coalition is costing more than the one it replaced. It was a pathetically stupid move, one that was political. The only losers were the poor. The fallout from the present system will be with us for decades.
The whole further education system needs revamping, the most important aspect being to take control away from governments.
The idea of just STEM being valuable to this country is wrong of course. Fashion brings in a fair bit.
Once the various governments see education as something they can exploit, all sense goes out the window.
Under the present system, graduates on low incomes do not repay their loans. After 30 years they are written off.The whole further education system needs revamping, the most important aspect being to take control away from governments.
The idea of just STEM being valuable to this country is wrong of course. Fashion brings in a fair bit.
Once the various governments see education as something they can exploit, all sense goes out the window.
The problem is not with graduates on low incomes, is it. The attraction of degrees for those at the bottom is to work their way up the earnings scale. So they get their STEM degree, spend a few years learning the ropes and then, just when they want to buy a place or perhaps have a family, the repayments kick in. Those with a bit of sense might well consider that lumbering yourself with massive debts so early in your life is perhaps not a good idea.
The present system, according to government figures, costs more than the one it replaced. These figures are in dispute, the suggestion being that if all on-costs are taken into consideration, the present system costs much more. I read one report a year or so ago that if they sell off the debts, which seems likely or possibly has already happened, then the loss will be even greater. That is the bottom line. It is expensive and pointless. Infuriatingly inept.
NailedOn said:
Derek Smith said:
The current system imposed by the coalition is costing more than the one it replaced. It was a pathetically stupid move, one that was political. The only losers were the poor. The fallout from the present system will be with us for decades.
The whole further education system needs revamping, the most important aspect being to take control away from governments.
The idea of just STEM being valuable to this country is wrong of course. Fashion brings in a fair bit.
Once the various governments see education as something they can exploit, all sense goes out the window.
Under the present system, graduates on low incomes do not repay their loans. After 30 years they are written off.The whole further education system needs revamping, the most important aspect being to take control away from governments.
The idea of just STEM being valuable to this country is wrong of course. Fashion brings in a fair bit.
Once the various governments see education as something they can exploit, all sense goes out the window.
the other important factor is that no-one pays up front - which was one of the stunts the future labour politicians of the NUS were pulling in opposition to the introduction of the 9k fee limit
Derek Smith said:
The current system imposed by the coalition is costing more than the one it replaced. It was a pathetically stupid move, one that was political. The only losers were the poor. The fallout from the present system will be with us for decades.
The whole further education system needs revamping, the most important aspect being to take control away from governments.
The idea of just STEM being valuable to this country is wrong of course. Fashion brings in a fair bit.
Once the various governments see education as something they can exploit, all sense goes out the window.
Ok to clarify. The whole further education system needs revamping, the most important aspect being to take control away from governments.
The idea of just STEM being valuable to this country is wrong of course. Fashion brings in a fair bit.
Once the various governments see education as something they can exploit, all sense goes out the window.
Old system had disabled, jobless, pensioners, those on tiny salaries subsidising those who wanted to go to higher education.
New system tuition fees introduced by Labour starter at £1k moving up to £3k when they left. This means that the remaining society paid less. coalition increased the cap to £9k and its the universities electing how much they charge or do not charge for the courses.
Again subsidy to the Unis reduced so remaining society contributed less towards it.
Problem is the silly starting point they have it and individual pots of loans they need to repay -- instead there should be a 1% or whatever increase to post graduate income tax for life this is proportional and you set that % at the correct level to ensure the total cost is recovered.
gruffalo said:
In 1998 the blessed Gordon Brown decided he could buy shines things today by ripping the profits out of pensions.
And now we have a black hole in pensions that we cannot afford to fill.
Now in 2015 we have a similar proposal that just proves that they should never be trusted with power again.
Are they thick or deluded?
No they all benefit from a pension scheme that their meddling does not impact,....And now we have a black hole in pensions that we cannot afford to fill.
Now in 2015 we have a similar proposal that just proves that they should never be trusted with power again.
Are they thick or deluded?
Derek Smith said:
Your point being?
The problem is not with graduates on low incomes, is it. The attraction of degrees for those at the bottom is to work their way up the earnings scale. So they get their STEM degree, spend a few years learning the ropes and then, just when they want to buy a place or perhaps have a family, the repayments kick in. Those with a bit of sense might well consider that lumbering yourself with massive debts so early in your life is perhaps not a good idea.
If you earn £21k, you pay back £30 a month. £30 a month on a debt in the five figures! £360 a year, I pay more than that in one month to pay back a bank loan, and my car payment, twice over. It's fThe problem is not with graduates on low incomes, is it. The attraction of degrees for those at the bottom is to work their way up the earnings scale. So they get their STEM degree, spend a few years learning the ropes and then, just when they want to buy a place or perhaps have a family, the repayments kick in. Those with a bit of sense might well consider that lumbering yourself with massive debts so early in your life is perhaps not a good idea.
k all in the grand scheme of things, as has been said, if they're too stupid to realise that the debt their "lumbering themselves with" is one of the best possible ways to borrow money, then that's their fault. And so what anyways, what's wrong with the idea of actually having to pay back for the education and training that has enabled them to be earning enough to have to repay it back in the first place?
KingNothing said:
If you earn £21k, you pay back £30 a month. £30 a month on a debt in the five figures! £360 a year, I pay more than that in one month to pay back a bank loan, and my car payment, twice over. It's fk all in the grand scheme of things, as has been said, if they're too stupid to realise that the debt their "lumbering themselves with" is one of the best possible ways to borrow money, then that's their fault.
And so what anyways, what's wrong with the idea of actually having to pay back for the education and training that has enabled them to be earning enough to have to repay it back in the first place?
£30 a monthk all in the grand scheme of things, as has been said, if they're too stupid to realise that the debt their "lumbering themselves with" is one of the best possible ways to borrow money, then that's their fault. And so what anyways, what's wrong with the idea of actually having to pay back for the education and training that has enabled them to be earning enough to have to repay it back in the first place?
Can you get a decent mobile for that?
McWigglebum4th said:
£30 a month
Can you get a decent mobile for that?
My phone contract is £30 a month, I just re-taxed my car on-line by direct-debit which is just over £20 a month, average gym membership is over £30 a month, car insurance is £55 a month, car loan is £155 a month. Then there's rent and all sorts of other sCan you get a decent mobile for that?
te that's more than £30 a month! So yeah, £30 a month is pretty much a drop in the ocean!
Not entirely unrelated, this made an interesting listen the other day.
BBC Face the Facts said:
MPs are furious that for-profit, private higher education colleges have had access to hundreds of millions of pounds of public funding with too few checks on how the money is being spent. The Government wanted the new sector to flourish in competition with State provision and since the new system was put in place in 2012, it has. But later there were reports that some students were being registered just to get access to student loan money, then that colleges were recruiting en masse and then that the standard of academic work being produced was inadequate.
shirt said:
this being the same labour party who ended grants and introduced loans and fees, whilst at the same time lowering university standards through 'access for all'.
I can't comment for the introduction of loans and fees, but their 'access for all' hasn't typically lowered standards. In terms of formal education entry standards, yes, but that process is out-dated and causes separation in society. Something, sadly, the other parties feel is important in the education system and they have plenty of support from the "it was better in my day" brigade. I didn't do very well at GCSE's under a Tory education ran system, but Labour made it very possible for me to progress my education and now as a mature student, despite having no A-Levels I consistently out perform those who do have the A-Level entry requirements on my degree course and I am well on my way to having at least a 2:1. The Tory party and now the emerging UKIP party would have dismissed me as an non-intellectual type before I even got to GCSE's if they had their way.
Perhaps I am an exception, but I feel I am evidence why 'access for all' is actually a very positive thing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff