Tuition Fees: Poorest students will get up to two years FREE tuition!

[Conservative,]

Tuition fees: Poorest students to get year for free

Proposed rises in tuition fees triggered student protests across Britain
Continue reading the main story
Related stories

Cable to back tuition fees rise
Date named for tuition fees vote
Thousands of university students from poorer backgrounds could have their tuition fees paid for up to two years under new government proposals.

Universities minister David Willetts said up to 18,000 students could get support for their fees from a new fund.

This and other safeguards should "absolutely" allay student concerns about the fees rise, Mr Willetts said.

But ahead of Thursday's vote to raise fees to £9,000, student leaders said the plan would have "limited impact".

As MPs prepare for that vote - on whether to back government proposals to increase the cap in fees from £3,375 to £9,000 from 2013 - Lib Dem sources said it was still unclear which way their 57 MPs would go.

The party has come under intense pressure from students after promising to abolish tuition fees in its election manifesto. Leader Nick Clegg and all other Lib Dem MPs signed a pre-election pledge to vote against any rise.

Mr Clegg's chief political adviser told the BBC that the party would announce its intentions following a meeting early next week.

'Extra assistance'
Cash for the new fund - set aside for pupils who were eligible for free schools meals - would come from the £150m National Scholarship Programme already announced.

Under the plans, universities which charge more than £6,000 a year could be forced to pay such students' fees for a second year.

Ministers believe up to 18,000 students could ultimately benefit, significantly increasing the numbers of children from poorer families going on to higher education.

Free school meals are available to families claiming certain benefits and are given to around 80,000 pupils in each school year.

Universities minister David Willetts: "This is the right thing to be putting forward"
Mr Willetts told BBC One's Politics Show the plan was to allow universities to offer "extra assistance" to pupils from poorer backgrounds by "relieving their fees cost".

Before Thursday's vote, he said the coalition would be emphasising the "very good features" of its student finance package, such as the fact there would be no upfront charges and the salary level at which graduates will have to start repaying will rise from £15,000 to £21,000.

"There is absolutely no reason why students that are worried should have any genuine concerns about the proposals," he added.

Ministers will meet student representatives next week to consult them on the plans, which have strong backing from Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

'Huge debt'
But National Union of Students president Aaron Porter said the plans "won't get very far".

"Despite the trebling of tuition fees, what we have seen is no further detail on the requirements from universities to put money into support for students from the poorest backgrounds.

"We suspect this will have a very limited impact at a time when debt will be so huge for those leaving our universities."

Despite efforts to bring them on board, more than 10 Lib Dem MPs have suggested they will vote against the plan while some others are considering abstaining.


“Nick Clegg is keen to try and get a consensus within the parliamentary party”

Norman Lamb
Lib Dem MP
Amid reports of disagreements between senior Lib Dems over the issue, MP Norman Lamb - Nick Clegg's political adviser - acknowledged the issue was "messy" and "difficult" but had to be considered through the party's normal decision-making procedures.

"Nick Clegg is keen to try and get a consensus within the parliamentary party," he told the Politics Show.

While it was his "strong preference" to vote for the proposals, Mr Lamb stressed that it was "important to keep the party united."

However, the proposals - which he said would see the 25% poorest students pay less than now - would be "an engine for social mobility".

"He [Nick Clegg] wants to get everyone on side and supporting a policy which, I agree and he agrees, is absolutely in accordance with Lib Dem values," he told the Politics Show.

Mr Clegg earlier told the Independent on Sunday that he believed in a policy which was "brave and bold" and would "lower barriers of entry to university."

'Cruel blow'
Days ahead of the vote, Labour leader Ed Miliband has also sought to make his position on the issue clear, saying the fees increase would set back the cause of social mobility by a generation.

Writing in the Observer, he said: "The proposals amount to a rejection of the long-standing recognition of our collective responsibility for higher education.

"Make no mistake - if this bill is voted through on Thursday, the government will deal a cruel blow to the chances of the next generation and betray the hopes of our young people."

However, senior figures within his own party have expressed concerns about Mr Miliband's alternative plan for a graduate tax, shadow chancellor Alan Johnson saying it may not be "workable".

The proposed increase does not apply in Scotland nor for students resident in Wales, wherever they chose to go on to study in the UK.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11920628


Y'all can be quiet now ty xo

[Catzsy]

18,000 students? 481,854 started at University in September. It seems that you are pretty easily pleased. :P

[Conservative,]

It won't affect me. I'm paying whether I like it or not. :l But everyone moaning they can't afford tuition fees can shush now.

[Catzsy]

It won't affect me. I'm paying whether I like it or not. :l But everyone moaning they can't afford tuition fees can shush now.

Not exactly what you said in the first post of the thread though and not really a plausible answer to my post? :P

[Conservative,]

I'm pleased easily if it's what I want...I guess you could say. But the tuition fees has never really done much for/against me so I don't really care it's just bugging me other people are moaning so now there's this they can be quiet ;)

[j0rd]

It won't affect me. I'm paying whether I like it or not. :l But everyone moaning they can't afford tuition fees can shush now.

I think I'm posting on behalf of everyone, and will probably get fired but here it goes:
Your like 14, you don't really know the experience most MATURE students are going through, please stop posting as if you are experiencing this yourself

[Catzsy]

I'm pleased easily if it's what I want...I guess you could say. But the tuition fees has never really done much for/against me so I don't really care it's just bugging me other people are moaning so now there's this they can be quiet ;)

But 18,000 poorest students is a mere drop in the ocean compared with the almost 500,000 that will have to pay so hardly any movement at all. Think about the figures logically.

[Inseriousity.]

Why is it bugging you other people are moaning? How does people protesting against something they disagree with have any impact on your life whatsoever?

Also, the new proposals doesn't really solve much. There are still plenty of other reasons to be against the changes. For example, the false market that these proposals would bring (6000 for one uni, 9000 for another. I wouldn't be so against it if every uni was capped at 6000).

[Special]

sorry cba to read the whole article - what determines 'poor' from everyone else?

[Hecktix]

Lol. But this has been the argument all along. We all knew the poorest of the poor would get support, like Catzsy said 18,000 out of 450,000 is nothing lol.

I can guaruntee that the other 432,000 can't all afford it lol, which is why it is so fair now as the system helps all of those who cannot afford it, yet this is just going to help the poorest of the poor and not the average UK citizen.

This is a pure publicity stunt trying to make them look better, when looking at the stats it still makes them look stupid. You clearly have no knowledge about how these things work and just like to pick arguments, in my opinion.

So no, I won't be quiet.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I must have entered some sort of parallel universe here, we've got Catzsy, Inseriousity. and Hecktix all complaining about government (which they seldom did before the 6th May 2010 and would often rush to defend the government) and more importantly, the tuition fees issue which was brought in by their political party which they defended and which they still voted for/supported despite the fact that Labour brought in tuition fees only a few years ago when they promised they would not.

I keep hearing on this issue people mentioning 'poor students will not be able to afford it' - as I understand it, poorer students will simply get a loan as most students tend to do and they will pay it off when they have left university. To be poor does not make you inable to pay off debts and does not mean that you have to rely on the state for the rest of your life - although I know some on this forum openly seek that agenda.

I'm not a fan of raising charges as I would much rather budgets such as the European Union, the climate change act, foreign aid and the state all be cut back - but everytime I have argued for this i've been attacked by Labour supporters and supporters of big and expensive government. So I ask; is it actually the case that you agree that the state should be cut back/the EU be cut back/foreign aid be cut in order to avoid prices rises in the likes of university? if not, then I fail to see what you are all complaining about.

[Conservative,]

I must have entered some sort of parallel universe here, we've got Catzsy, Inseriousity. and Hecktix all complaining about government (which they seldom did before the 6th May 2010 and would often rush to defend the government) and more importantly, the tuition fees issue which was brought in by their political party which they defended and which they still voted for/supported despite the fact that Labour brought in tuition fees only a few years ago when they promised they would not.

I keep hearing on this issue people mentioning 'poor students will not be able to afford it' - as I understand it, poorer students will simply get a loan as most students tend to do and they will pay it off when they have left university. To be poor does not make you inable to pay off debts and does not mean that you have to rely on the state for the rest of your life - although I know some on this forum openly seek that agenda.

I agree with this tbh.

[Hecktix]

I must have entered some parallel universe here, we've got Catzsy, Inseriousity. and Hecktix all complaining about government (which they seldom did before the 6th May 2010 and would often rush to defend the government) and more importantly, the tuition fees issue which was brought in by their political party which they defended and which they still voted for/supported despite the fact that Labour brought in tuition fees only a few years ago when they promised they would not.

I keep hearing on this issue people mentioning 'poor students will not be able to afford it' - as I understand it, poorer students will simply get a loan as most students tend to do and they will pay it off when they have left university. To be poor does not make you automatically stupid or permanently financially handicapped so that you have to rely on the state for the rest of your life - although I know some on this forum openly seek that agenda as seen in threads such as this.

blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah - I voted Labour and yes I'm ******* glad I did.

The point isn't we want people to have handouts from the state the point is that no education should cost £9000 per year for anyone, no matter how much money your family has in the bank. Period, so let's not start turning this into U CANT MOAN U VOTED LABOUR, as quite frankly you don't know what Labour would have done upon receipt of Lord Browne's report so don't pretend you do, you go sit in your UKIP corner and we'll sit in our Labour corner, because at this moment in time Labour oppose these rises and that is all that matters to me at present.

[-:Undertaker:-]

blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah - I voted Labour and yes I'm ******* glad I did.

The point isn't we want people to have handouts from the state the point is that no education should cost £9000 per year for anyone, no matter how much money your family has in the bank. Period, so let's not start turning this into U CANT MOAN U VOTED LABOUR, as quite frankly you don't know what Labour would have done upon receipt of Lord Browne's report so don't pretend you do, you go sit in your UKIP corner and we'll sit in our Labour corner, because at this moment in time Labour oppose these rises and that is all that matters to me at present.

So its a matter of faith for you to support your party no matter how I show how they are just as bad as the current lot; you don't give a damn about the actual issue at hand - all you care about is having a go at the other side when your own side brought this system in in the first place.

You are getting what you voted for, stop complaining about it.


because at this moment in time Labour oppose these rises and that is all that matters to me at present.

Of course they do, because they are not in office - just as in 2001 when they stated they would not bring tuition fees in, and then after the election they went and brought them in. The reason why I say its a matter of faith for you is because you simply will not accept that there's no reason to believe that Labour would not have also raised tuition fees - they have a track record in telling lies on this subject.

[Hecktix]

I completely believe Labour would have raised tuition fees, to an affordable amount.

[Inseriousity.]

Maybe you're getting me mixed up with someone else but I've always been politically neutral when it comes to voting for the parties although I am a 'leftie' as you call it so I naturally support left-wing policies etc. If that automatically means I become a labour supporter then so be it but unfortunately, I had no choice but to vote labour as I found out that you vote on a local level not a national level and the Labour MP was the best choice for my area. I know you've said it before but I am fully aware that all 3 parties are the exact same so I'm not particularly a fan of anyone.

Now that I've got that out the way, I am not someone who preaches 'the poor won't be able to afford it' as I know that people go to university to make their lives better (whether that's a false assumption to make is a different debate altogether). I'm against the marketisation of education, which falsely tries to bring in competition under the assumption that bad schools will close and good schools will thrive, which they do not. At the moment, all universities are capped at £3,300 or something and if the fees were to rise to £6,000 for every university then I wouldn't actually complain that much as I'm aware we're in some deep **** that we need to dig deep to get out of. Instead the top universities will be charging £9,000 while the rest will have to charge £6,000 which just brings in an apparent 'competition' and it's more than likely that those who are left in the £6,000 a year universities will be mostly the poor and disadvantaged, which I think is wrong.

That's my stance on the university tuition fees rises, wouldn't want people to get a false impression.

[Conservative,]

Maybe you're getting me mixed up with someone else but I've always been politically neutral when it comes to voting for the parties although I am a 'leftie' as you call it so I naturally support left-wing policies etc. If that automatically means I become a labour supporter then so be it but unfortunately, I had no choice but to vote labour as I found out that you vote on a local level not a national level and the Labour MP was the best choice for my area. I know you've said it before but I am fully aware that all 3 parties are the exact same so I'm not particularly a fan of anyone.

Now that I've got that out the way, I am not someone who preaches 'the poor won't be able to afford it' as I know that people go to university to make their lives better (whether that's a false assumption to make is a different debate altogether). I'm against the marketisation of education, which falsely tries to bring in competition under the assumption that bad schools will close and good schools will thrive, which they do not. At the moment, all universities are capped at £3,300 or something and if the fees were to rise to £6,000 for every university then I wouldn't actually complain that much as I'm aware we're in some deep **** that we need to dig deep to get out of. Instead the top universities will be charging £9,000 while the rest will have to charge £6,000 which just brings in an apparent 'competition' and it's more than likely that those who are left in the £6,000 a year universities will be mostly the poor and disadvantaged, which I think is wrong.

That's my stance on the university tuition fees rises, wouldn't want people to get a false impression.

If you read the article that I originally posted, you'd see they'll be making the £9k per year ones give 2 years free...aka the poorest students would only have to take out a £9k loan..whereas if they weren't to a not-so-good Uni that cost £6k a year they'd be needing a £12k loan because they would only give out 1 free year, hence bringing competition for the poorer students to achieve highly and go to the best Uni's. That's nothing to complain about imo.

It's also doing what I want it to do..for the poorer students anyway...those with better grades will get into the top Uni's and will only have to pay £9k (because of the 2 free years) but those with not so good grades will have to pay £12k...which is what I think is fairer...charging students on how well the achieved. :)

[Catzsy]

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
I must have entered some sort of parallel universe here, we've got Catzsy, Inseriousity. and Hecktix all complaining about government (which they seldom did before the 6th May 2010 and would often rush to defend the government) and more importantly, the tuition fees issue which was brought in by their political party which they defended and which they still voted for/supported despite the fact that Labour brought in tuition fees only a few years ago when they promised they would not.

I keep hearing on this issue people mentioning 'poor students will not be able to afford it' - as I understand it, poorer students will simply get a loan as most students tend to do and they will pay it off when they have left university. To be poor does not make you inable to pay off debts and does not mean that you have to rely on the state for the rest of your life - although I know some on this forum openly seek that agenda.

Did you actually read the thread? It says only 18,000 of the students would get it. Approximately 450,000 students go to University every year. This has nothing to do with Party Political Politics as you always try to say. If Labour had bought out this level I would also have disagreed. This is 9k a year just for tuition fees. This doesn't include books, accommodation, living expenses or anything else. Of the 18,000 the first year will be paid by the government and the second year by the university. What university is going to do that realistically.
It will just bring back elitism within education and drag us back to the 1960's. I do not think even Margaret Thatcher would have agreed with this, seriously. The estimate for tax evasion in the UK is at present estimated at 70billion. What are they doing about that? Diddly squat!
All Political parties lie. Conversatives in 1979 - we will not raise VAT and then doubled it within the next month, 1997 - Labour we will not bring in Tuition fees however I don't think they travelled around the country signing pledges at Universities to that effect. All those students that voted for the Liberals on the strength of those pledges have been badly let down.

[Inseriousity.]

They still need to get into those universities. Already, there are probably hundreds of people around the country that do not apply to Oxbridge because they don't think they'll be able to get the grades (not talking about the ones that don't get those grades, talking about the AAA people who don't have that confidence that those in private education do), they don't think they'll fit in and various other reasons. It's not just about the money, there are various other factors.

I do not think the labelling of universities would be beneficial for anyone. There is no parity of esteem at the minute anyway but to make that officially recognised would be detrimental to the not-so-good universities and the students that pass through their door. When fees are capped (even if they were all raised), it means that those in the poorer universities won't suffer from attempts at marketisating a system that doesn't work in the way that markets do.

[Conservative,]

They still need to get into those universities. Already, there are probably hundreds of people around the country that do not apply to Oxbridge because they don't think they'll be able to get the grades (not talking about the ones that don't get those grades, talking about the AAA people who don't have that confidence that those in private education do), they don't think they'll fit in and various other reasons. It's not just about the money, there are various other factors.

I do not think the labelling of universities would be beneficial for anyone. There is no parity of esteem at the minute anyway but to make that officially recognised would be detrimental to the not-so-good universities and the students that pass through their door. When fees are capped (even if they were all raised), it means that those in the poorer universities won't suffer from attempts at marketisating a system that doesn't work in the way that markets do.

Private education has nothing to do with confidence. I will be applying to Cambridge to study Maths and I will be confident in myself. Why? Because I know I can get in. Do I have any private education at all? No. Do I have friends who do? Yes. Do they have any views that they're more likely to get into a top Uni simply because of their education? No. To be honest private education (as much as I'll probably send my children into that world...) just puts you into a group of rich kids who are mainly s**** and think they can buy their way through life.

If you don't have the self-esteem to apply to a top Uni why should you get in? They're looking for people with confidence and aspirations, not someone who may be clever but actually has no dreams.

Your 2nd paragraph doesn't make sense to me so i can't comment. But your 1st paragraph really isn't logical. If someone believes they can get into a University then they would apply. They wouldn't be bothered about if they fit in or whatever. I don't care whether I'll fit in or not at Cambridge (assuming I got in)..I just care that I get the best education possible.

[Catzsy]

Private education has nothing to do with confidence. I will be applying to Cambridge to study Maths and I will be confident in myself. Why? Because I know I can get in. Do I have any private education at all? No. Do I have friends who do? Yes. Do they have any views that they're more likely to get into a top Uni simply because of their education? No. To be honest private education (as much as I'll probably send my children into that world...) just puts you into a group of rich kids who are mainly s**** and think they can buy their way through life.

If you don't have the self-esteem to apply to a top Uni why should you get in? They're looking for people with confidence and aspirations, not someone who may be clever but actually has no dreams.


Your 2nd paragraph doesn't make sense to me so i can't comment. But your 1st paragraph really isn't logical. If someone believes they can get into a University then they would apply. They wouldn't be bothered about if they fit in or whatever. I don't care whether I'll fit in or not at Cambridge (assuming I got in)..I just care that I get the best education possible.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with aspiring to go to Cambridge. I wish alll the best for it.

[JerseySafety]

Wow, whats so special about the Poorest students? Seriously, it should be even fees.

[Conservative,]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with aspiring to go to Cambridge. I wish alll the best for it.
I didn't say there was. But thank you. I am hoping to get decent enough grade(s) this year so I can carry on doing Maths, Physics & French at A level :)

Wow, whats so special about the Poorest students? Seriously, it should be even fees.
That's like saying why doesn't everyone pay a set rate of income tax. If they did the rich would be richer, the poor would be poorer. I think the people complaining and annoying and narrow minded but that doesn't mean I don't think the poor should get help..because they should.

[Inseriousity.]

I never said every poor student has no aspiration or dreams. That's just stupid. However, it's foolish to also suggest that private education has nothing to do with confidence. A private education opens up many more doors than a state education does.

I wish you all the best for your Oxbridge dream and I'm glad you look past the barriers but I think it's naive to think that there aren't any. The Sutton Trust is designed to widening participation and have to tackle these barriers everyday.

And I'll rephrase my second paragraph:

I do not think the labelling of universities would be beneficial for anyone. There is no parity of esteem at the minute anyway but to make that officially recognised would be detrimental to the not-so-good universities and the students that pass through their door. When fees are capped (even if they were all raised), it means that those in the poorer universities won't suffer from attempts at marketisating a system that doesn't work in the way that markets do.

Making universities pay different amounts wouldn't be beneficial to anyone. At the minute, there is no 'official' recognition of what universities are better. It's all done by the students rather than the government saying 'this one charges more, this university is better.' When fees are all the same for every university, it means that those in the "not-so-good" universities won't suffer due to a political party's ideological beliefs.

[Conservative,]

I never said every poor student has no aspiration or dreams. That's just stupid. However, it's foolish to also suggest that private education has nothing to do with confidence. A private education opens up many more doors than a state education does.

I wish you all the best for your Oxbridge dream and I'm glad you look past the barriers but I think it's naive to think that there aren't any.

Please elaborate on these "barriers" I see none that bar me from living my Oxbridge dream?

[Hecktix]

Please elaborate on these "barriers" I see none that bar me from living my Oxbridge dream?

Are you aware of the ratio of private to state schooled at Oxbridge?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I completely believe Labour would have raised tuition fees, to an affordable amount.

Yes, just like on how Labour were going to spend our way out of debt? Greece, Ireland, Spain, Belgium, Portutgal..

Of course you believe it, its a form of faith for you from which no reasonable argument/points can detatch you it.


Maybe you're getting me mixed up with someone else but I've always been politically neutral when it comes to voting for the parties although I am a 'leftie' as you call it so I naturally support left-wing policies etc. If that automatically means I become a labour supporter then so be it but unfortunately, I had no choice but to vote labour as I found out that you vote on a local level not a national level and the Labour MP was the best choice for my area. I know you've said it before but I am fully aware that all 3 parties are the exact same so I'm not particularly a fan of anyone.

All the three major parties have been following Fabianism (with exception of the Thatcher Ministry hence why she is so hated by the left) since the end of the war, if you are left wing then that's great - and you've done what I often challenge many to do, which is to admit that the Lib/Lab/Con are all the same and have been following a Fabian programme of government since the war.

I don't agree its been good for the country at all, but at least you've now stated they are all one.


Now that I've got that out the way, I am not someone who preaches 'the poor won't be able to afford it' as I know that people go to university to make their lives better (whether that's a false assumption to make is a different debate altogether). I'm against the marketisation of education, which falsely tries to bring in competition under the assumption that bad schools will close and good schools will thrive, which they do not. At the moment, all universities are capped at £3,300 or something and if the fees were to rise to £6,000 for every university then I wouldn't actually complain that much as I'm aware we're in some deep **** that we need to dig deep to get out of. Instead the top universities will be charging £9,000 while the rest will have to charge £6,000 which just brings in an apparent 'competition' and it's more than likely that those who are left in the £6,000 a year universities will be mostly the poor and disadvantaged, which I think is wrong.

That's my stance on the university tuition fees rises, wouldn't want people to get a false impression.

Well i'm not sure on charges and so forth, personally I would allow fees to go up in an ideal world (but bare in mind that people would be much better off under a true capitalist system as the poor would have money in their wallets, rather than having it taxed away from them - which is the current system we have). The lower the taxes, the bigger the wealth-creating sector is - more jobs and industry are about, more employment = less universities needed which would mean a cull in poor universities and would again return degrees to the previous standard they had (being worthwhile).

While university numbers need cutting, I know why people feel the need to go to university "because to get a decent job I need a degree" which in part is true, because the private sector is rapidly shrinking and its turned into a race to the remaining jobs in them sectors. A transformation in the economy is needed, Thatcher never went far enough and i'll cite an example; the privatisation of the buses swapped a government monopoly for a private monopoly (which did sort out big economic problems), the real way to go about this is to end the monopolies meaning that if my Dad wanted to go out and buy a bus, run a route - he would be able to do so.

If the above happened, can you imagine the mass of jobs created? from ice cream men, to bus drivers and so forth - it would also end monopolies which go straight into the shareholders pockets of large companies such as Arriva. But the fact i've now gone onto economics/jobs just shows how much of a big problem this is, and the state remains at the heart of the problem like always.


Did you actually read the thread? It says only 18,000 of the students would get it.

And the introduction of tuition fees I expect affected all students.


Approximately 450,000 students go to University every year. This has nothing to do with Party Political Politics as you always try to say. If Labour had bought out this level I would also have disagreed. This is 9k a year just for tuition fees. This doesn't include books, accommodation, living expenses or anything else. Of the 18,000 the first year will be paid by the government and the second year by the university. What university is going to do that realistically.

Yes it does, I see all the Labour supporters on here now complaining about having to pay more - despite the fact it was the Labour Party which greatly expanded the state sector, it was Labour who have been giving away hundreds of billions each year to insitutions such as the European Union, foreign aid, the IMF, the United Nations.. and I post this constantly - yes you've personally been sympathetic to the EU point (which is more than can be said for others) but to complain about having to pay more to the state is pure hypocrisy when taxes have been going through the roof over the past decade.


It will just bring back elitism within education and drag us back to the 1960's. I do not think even Margaret Thatcher would have agreed with this, seriously.

I was hoping somebody would bring this up, elitism of education - the education system has never been more elitist and I shall explain why; during the 1960s the grammar schools system was trashed by all major parties and replaced by the comprehensive system which has greatly decreased social mobility for the poorest and most disadvantaged despite the fact it intended to do the opposite. The grammar schools system ensured that the cleverest of the poorest were mixed with the cleverest of the richer students.

Now we have an education system where in order to get a good education you can either pay for a private school (meaning you have to be wealthy) or you can buy into a catchment area of a good school (meaning, again, that you have to have wealthy parents in order to do this) - and who's left out in all this? the poorest kids. The grammar schools system eliminates this and ensures the poorer kids are placed with those who are academically more able. In Eastern Germany when the Berlin Wall came down, one of the first things they brought back was the flexible German-style grammer schools system they had before the socialists abolished them.


The estimate for tax evasion in the UK is at present estimated at 70billion. What are they doing about that? Diddly squat!

And what did Labour do? diddly squat!

So why vote for either of them I ask you? I mean we could go on into the night on the subject of wasted money; the European Union which costs hundreds of billions over a number of years, foreign aid, a vast state sector, the Climate change act which costs nearly £20bn a year.. it's endless.


All Political parties lie. Conversatives in 1979 - we will not raise VAT and then doubled it within the next month, 1997 - Labour we will not bring in Tuition fees however I don't think they travelled around the country signing pledges at Universities to that effect. All those students that voted for the Liberals on the strength of those pledges have been badly let down.

Indeed they do, so don't vote for them - vote for another party, and if they turn out to be liars then at least you can say to yourself "well I truly didn't expect that, i've been made a fool of and it certainly won't happen again" and you simply don't vote for them again. But when you keep voting in the same bunch of liars in everytime then it gets both tiring and hypocritical.


Are you aware of the ratio of private to state schooled at Oxbridge?

Which is another result of the ending of the grammar schools, kids without wealthy parents are condemned to state schools which are below their standard - bring back the grammar schools and you'll be on your way to solving this problem of social mobility.

See Douglas Murray on the subject of higher education;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbndflIAcBo

[Dean]

I'm not interested in university anymore after the fees increase and wasn't really that bothered before the fees increase anyway, but I'd sure like to know what poor is classed as? If so, sure, I'll have two years of free university please. Thanks. Saying that though, the whole fees increase thing is a joke anyway.

[Conservative,]

I'm not interested in university anymore after the fees increase and wasn't really that bothered before the fees increase anyway, but I'd sure like to know what poor is classed as? If so, sure, I'll have two years of free university please. Thanks. Saying that though, the whole fees increase thing is a joke anyway.

People entitled to free school meals...

the income thresh hold is: £16,190 or less per house hold.

[Hecktix]

People entitled to free school meals...

the income thresh hold is: £16,190 or less per house hold.

Which is ridiculous, as that's below the average wage therefore doesn't even touch the average british family lol, don't get me wrong the least disadvantaged should get more help but should everyone else, tuitions fees should be affordable for all - rich, middle class poor whatever and there should be a staggered assistance programme like there is at the moment which starts at a household income of £39,000.

This policy will affect barely any students and just furthers our argument of discrimination.

[Conservative,]

Which is ridiculous, as that's below the average wage therefore doesn't even touch the average british family lol, don't get me wrong the least disadvantaged should get more help but should everyone else, tuitions fees should be affordable for all - rich, middle class poor whatever and there should be a staggered assistance programme like there is at the moment which starts at a household income of £39,000.
This policy will affect barely any students and just furthers our argument of discrimination.

I agree there should be a staggered system. It's a shame people don't come up with these at the start because then people might actually listen.

But actually the median income is between 15-20k a year (31% of households) and 75% of all households earn less than 30k so..yeah

[Fez]

My family earns less than 15k, so I'm not sure if I'll be eligible for this, as I hear it's only for people under 10k or something.

Then again I disagree with raising the fees so high anyway.

[Conservative,]

My family earns less than 15k, so I'm not sure if I'll be eligible for this, as I hear it's only for people under 10k or something.

Then again I disagree with raising the fees so high anyway.

Yes you will be entitled to it.

[Hecktix]

I agree there should be a staggered system. It's a shame people don't come up with these at the start because then people might actually listen.

But actually the median income is between 15-20k a year (31% of households) and 75% of all households earn less than 30k so..yeah

and that 75% get a lot of help at the moment, which is the way it should be - university is already expensive but imo it's fairly expensive, the increases make it unfair.

[Dean]

My household income is well under 10k anyway.

[Conservative,]

and that 75% get a lot of help at the moment, which is the way it should be - university is already expensive but imo it's fairly expensive, the increases make it unfair.

How is it fair now? The changes mean that:

You don't have to pay upfront and you're earning a decent amount before worrying about it.
Unis will have better funding.
The porter students will get good funding.

I don't see how anyone can complain?

[FlyingJesus]

A lot of these arguments seem to be just people repeating themselves at each other, so I'm going to ignore all previous comments and just give two reasons why this is a laughable announcement:

1) 18,000 is a very small number compared to how many apply to uni and more importantly
2) Since when did being poor mean you get preferential treatment? This basically means that the top universities (which will be the ones with higher top rates obv) will now have to accept a certain percentage of people from poorer backgrounds regardless of how good they actually are academically. As if the entry process for Oxbridge and other top institutions isn't difficult enough to get through, a huge number of applicants will now be totally disenfranchised simply because they happen to be better off than someone else. It's the same ridiculous logic as forcing companies to employ a certain number of non-whites, cripples and women even if they aren't the best people for the job, which I have never heard anyone approve of

[Hecktix]

How is it fair now? The changes mean that:

You don't have to pay upfront and you're earning a decent amount before worrying about it.
Unis will have better funding.
The porter students will get good funding.

I don't see how anyone can complain?

Because 18,000 students is nothing... lol.

[Fez]

2) Since when did being poor mean you get preferential treatment? This basically means that the top universities (which will be the ones with higher top rates obv) will now have to accept a certain percentage of people from poorer backgrounds regardless of how good they actually are academically. As if the entry process for Oxbridge and other top institutions isn't difficult enough to get through, a huge number of applicants will now be totally disenfranchised simply because they happen to be better off than someone else. It's the same ridiculous logic as forcing companies to employ a certain number of non-whites, cripples and women even if they aren't the best people for the job, which I have never heard anyone approve of

Unfortunately I belong in that group, and I completely agree with what you're saying here. I wouldn't call myself an 'exceptional' student, to which Universities like Oxbridge were founded to cater for, but I'm certainly more literate than average people. If I was from another background then I'd be a candidate for Oxbridge, but it wouldn't be a shoe-in for sure. Because I come from the worst of backgrounds, Oxbridge are forced to perform bias towards my application, even if I'm (lets say) labelled as "highly achieving" instead of "exceptional" which they normally ask for. In fact, in cases like this, the student suffers more really because we're being given a pat on the head and a chance to be something from a poorer background. Personally in the next few years I'd like to prove myself rather than already being held above other people from higher backgrounds.

[Conservative,]

Because 18,000 students is nothing... lol.

You didn't answer my question...

The system is broken. Although I fully admit this is not the best solution its better than it is and until you can tell me how the current system is fair I will stand by the government on these reforms.

[Fez]

You didn't answer my question...

The system is broken. Although I fully admit this is not the best solution its better than it is and until you can tell me how the current system is fair I will stand by the government on these reforms.

Everyone is throwing the word 'loans' around and so on and so forth. That people like me can live with that much debt to fall into a job and then pay it off in increments. They're the lucky ones. We have a terrible job market for the moment and early predictions mean it'll only get worse. This means that the world is changing at such a pace where people cannot live with debt, not just financially but psychologically; to have that burden on your back crushes people in many ways. Confidence is the most important resource of the 21st century next to oil, and although I will say that the current system is terrible... it works. I just don't see how the new system can actually benefit as many people as the previous system has done.

So, in technicality and in smoothness, the new system wins out no doubt. But in terms of actually being made for the people and not for the government, the current system wins completely.

[lawrawrrr]

I'm kinda neutral here, I agree with both sides, I mean, the government NEEDS money from somewhere - someone had to suffer. I think fees were inevitably going to rise, it's just unlucky it's our generation who are going to suffer. And if you're one of those 18,000 extra (and I say extra, because there were, and still are, other university and government-based schemes for people from a 'less advantaged background'), then it's a very good thing.

But on the other hand, for students like us, wanting to go to university, to have even the slightest chance of a decent job, the fees are tough. At the end of the day, we're probably going to have to like it or lump it, because it's a necessary evil, really. But, for those of us coming from a 'more advantaged background' (to use direct.gov's words...), it's unfair, especially if you're anything like me and not getting any support from your family. I have to take out loans for everything - and I'm in no doubt that I'm going to be paying off the debt for the rest of my life, especially considering the job I want.



The system is broken. Although I fully admit this is not the best solution its better than it is and until you can tell me how the current system is fair I will stand by the government on these reforms.
The question of 'fair' is difficult to answer though, because what we want is not what they want, and vice versa.

[jackass]

Once again, the poorest communities are better off, and the rest of us get nothing. I'm so ******* sick of this ****.

[lawrawrrr]

Once again, the poorest communities are better off, and the rest of us get nothing. I'm so ******* sick of this ****.

Amen to that.

[Hecktix]

You didn't answer my question...

The system is broken. Although I fully admit this is not the best solution its better than it is and until you can tell me how the current system is fair I will stand by the government on these reforms.

The current system is very fair, tuition fees are capped at £3375, all unis charge the same amount - so there is no price elitism within universities.

60% of students get funding help they don't have to pay back, however this is only a third of the total price, this will decrease to less than 5% should this policy come in.
All students get the chance to get a loan at a fair price, staggered all the way up to about £50k.

Sounds pretty fair to me.

Although I respect we're in a sticky financial situation, so I believe the fee cap should raise to between £5000 and £6000, I'm from a middle class family and I struggle to fund my education, and I know thousands of others will too, including you unless you're super-rich.

[Conservative,]

The current system is very fair, tuition fees are capped at £3375, all unis charge the same amount - so there is no price elitism within universities.

60% of students get funding help they don't have to pay back, however this is only a third of the total price, this will decrease to less than 5% should this policy come in.
All students get the chance to get a loan at a fair price, staggered all the way up to about £50k.

Sounds pretty fair to me.

Although I respect we're in a sticky financial situation, so I believe the fee cap should raise to between £5000 and £6000, I'm from a middle class family and I struggle to fund my education, and I know thousands of others will too, including you unless you're super-rich.

I'm not super rich, I'm like you..from a middle class family. I know I will have to take a loan out and I know that I won't get any help of funding from these schemes. But I live with it...

[FlyingJesus]

Unfortunately I belong in that group

Non-white crippled women?

Sorry couldn't resist


Because I come from the worst of backgrounds, Oxbridge are forced to perform bias towards my application, even if I'm (lets say) labelled as "highly achieving" instead of "exceptional" which they normally ask for. In fact, in cases like this, the student suffers more really because we're being given a pat on the head and a chance to be something from a poorer background. Personally in the next few years I'd like to prove myself rather than already being held above other people from higher backgrounds.

Interesting point, I'll confess I hadn't really thought about how it would affect "the 18000" (because I was busy being indignant at how stupid the proposal is :P) but you're absolutely right. I'd further suggest that - with no offence to you, I don't know your actual background obviously - people who've grown up in council flat estates and the likes are not going to be the sort who would benefit most from an Oxford placement. This I deduce from how I've seen people even from what I would consider rather well-off families struggle to fit in with what we think of as the typical Eton student lifestyle for both social and financial reasons. There are exceptions I'm sure but for the most part I don't imagine spending 3 years being petrified of doing anything that might make your peers look down on you is going to be what most aspire to

[dbgtz]

Sorry to possibly change topic, but isn't the fact you only pay when you have a job earning 21k+ meant to balance it out (to a certain extent)? I mean, my parents won't pay for my uni and I will obviously do so, so what if I get a job for 21k after uni, and a poor person get's one for 24k? Surely I am the poor one in that circumstance? But even so, I would still be able to pay off debt.

In the end, it's pretty pointless seeing as the "pay after" thing is in place. It's like scraping the top layer of a cake and saying you don't want it anymore as the rest is too rich (in flavour).

[Pyroka]

This is just another attempt at trying to get the legislation passed through Parliament. It says they can apply for the funding, but it doesn't state any requirements so the amount of people who got it could be like hardly any. Dirty tactics if you ask me & I don't like the sound of it one bit. Regardless of that fact anyway, what about those who are middle class, don't meet the requirements they set and have the huge debt that graduates will come out with? Yeah, government yet again playing the field there because they will get *nothing*

Plus when the poorest get of of uni anyway, they still have that huge interest to pay, there's no real benefit except that if they get a good job, they won't have to pay as long. It's an EMA situation all over again.

[lawrawrrr]

Sorry to possibly change topic, but isn't the fact you only pay when you have a job earning 21k+ meant to balance it out (to a certain extent)? I mean, my parents won't pay for my uni and I will obviously do so, so what if I get a job for 21k after uni, and a poor person get's one for 24k? Surely I am the poor one in that circumstance? But even so, I would still be able to pay off debt.

In the end, it's pretty pointless seeing as the "pay after" thing is in place. It's like scraping the top layer of a cake and saying you don't want it anymore as the rest is too rich (in flavour).

Love the analogy. And you're totally right, as I said earlier, the 'poor' distinction doesn't seem fair, because you can't define poor as parents' earning. At the end of the day, we're going to have to pay off our debt, no matter how much we may earn over the boundary. But the government are trying to put more debt-helping schemes in place, I just can't remember what they are right now...

[Chippiewill]

After having a long hard think about it I have decided to change my position on this, 90% of people trying to go to university will be in the same situation; their parents will not pay their university fees, they'll have to get a loan etc. Only every few in the upper middle classes will have it paid for them and when you think about it the lower class will be in the same place, getting a loan and they will be mostly financially independent from their family.

Therefore everyone going to university will be in roughly the same position financially because their finances will not be dependent on their families. The only problem then is the high price over the several years, £27,000 for three year courses, however thus far people graduating in america have still succeeded with higher than this debt and do not spend the rest of their life paying it all off.

In fact you could say it's those who aren't going to receive this free tuition fees that are going to lose out as they are going to be given an unfair disadvantage.

I could be wrong, but thinking about it I don't see much of a problem.

[Suspective]

I think this is unfair quite frankly. As others have said, most people's parents won't be paying for their higher education - they will be getting a student loan. Our government is far to generous. They pay people to go to school, and now their paying people to go to university.

I don't get why your parent's incomes are always being brought into this. So basically, you are getting a good cheaper education compared to others; just because your parents are on benefits. This country isn't right. What happened to a fair and equal chance for everyone?

The government think getting over 45,000 a year makes you rich, it doesn't.

[FlyingJesus]

Sorry to possibly change topic, but isn't the fact you only pay when you have a job earning 21k+ meant to balance it out (to a certain extent)? I mean, my parents won't pay for my uni and I will obviously do so, so what if I get a job for 21k after uni, and a poor person get's one for 24k? Surely I am the poor one in that circumstance? But even so, I would still be able to pay off debt.

In the end, it's pretty pointless seeing as the "pay after" thing is in place. It's like scraping the top layer of a cake and saying you don't want it anymore as the rest is too rich (in flavour).

I quite agree, the hefty raise in what wage you start repayments at more than balances out the rise in fees in my view (obviously you can more comfortably make repayments if you earn £21000 than you could if you're earning £15000), I just think this latest part of the plan is stupid

[Metric1]

Poor people need to fix their lives. GET $$$

[alexxxxx]

what i don't understand is the government's idea that somehow people from lower income families should deserve more help than from middle-income families.

The responsibility of paying back the loan will be on the Student - not the family! The idea that every middle class family can afford to help out their children at university is frankly stupid. It could be possible that people from lower income families could come out with less debt than someone from a middle-income family, hardly fair is it?

Cut the armed forces, abolish all fees.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Cut the armed forces, abolish all fees.

Nothing left to cut from our run down armed forces, although we could cut the £10bn+ that we give directly to the European Union? or what about the £10bn+ in foreign aid that we give away to countries that mostly despise us? as for abolishing fees - make degrees even more worthless than they currently are? Not everybody is suited to university.

[alexxxxx]

Nothing left to cut from our run down armed forces, although we could cut the £10bn+ that we give directly to the European Union? or what about the £10bn+ in foreign aid that we give away to countries that mostly despise us? as for abolishing fees - make degrees even more worthless than they currently are? Not everybody is suited to university.
Most degrees are not worthless. My degree is certainly not worthless and infact requires 20+hours of contact time in university a week. When emerging EU nations have graduation rates higher than the UK, it is clear that education is valued well across the whole of the world and by employers. If anything it shows commitment to a cause and progression. Not everyone is suited to university, but it's up to the person to decide that for themselves, not someone else. I think tuition fees as they are fairly fair, if not a bit expensive for 4 or more year courses (like mine).

The real issue is the collapse in funding from central government and the fact that students will be paying more for less.

[tnuCAsggelC]

I'll just raise this thread up a little bit. I can't be bothered going through the whole thread to pick out every quote so I'll just go off the OP's viewpoint.

Do you honestly believe this is the end? Do you seriously believe we'll sit down and take it from the Government because they've passed this tosh? If so then you're very silly. The poll tax vote was passed and yet that was removed after a couple of years because the people carried on in what they believe in. The previous generation got us into this mess because they took it from the Government. They're the generation you'll find on many internet forums moaning about how students should get a job and a shower. The generation which even believe the statement "the students need to get used to a lying Government, they've been doing it for years" is fine. It's the generation which can't see that if they stood up instead of trying to get an invite to the show Grumpy Old Men then the Government wouldn't have pished this country down the pan.

It's our generation which is having to pay because of them. This isn't right and won't happen. What we've seen so far is amazing. Our generation is the one which wasn't meant to look any further than Facebook, XBOX and X Factor and yet we've seen thousands turning out across the country to show the Government that we won't bend over for them like the previous generation did. We've witnessed school children abandoning lessons and taking to the streets. When I was in school I'm pretty sure if someone got involved in something like this then they would have been laughed at and called a politcal geek (or something along those lines) however now even the children are seeing it's time to take a stand! It's amazing. At the Roscoe Occupation we had a speaker in who was in year nine, he wasn't fazed at all to speaking to a room full of hundreds of 17-24+ year olds. It was great to see. It's us who are meant to pay 9K a year (don't believe the hype, the vast majority will have to pay 9K) plus added interest. We're only allowed to pay it over years because it allows time for the interest to build up which equals more money to the Government.

The Government underestimated us. They thought we wouldn't think this was "cool" and wouldn't bother fighting back. The Government believed only a few "geeks" would turn out, this was proven in the amount of police on hand at the initial London protest in November. They had a shock and the police were shown up. It was amusing to see the red faces but then they tried to get revenge. They opted for heavy handed tactics, they kettled us and charged us with horses to try and eat away at our belief. This didn't work.

As you saw last week we turned out again, and we will continue turning out. The police are continuing using heavy handed tactics, ripping wheel chair users out of the wheel chairs and putting people in hospital to have brain operations. We shall not stand for this. If the police want to copy the Italian heavy handed approach then we shall copy our European friends in our fightback. As the old saying goes, fight fire with fire... the only difference is we will literally use fire like our European friends in Greece 2008.

If you thought last weeks violence was "scary" then I'd get behind the sofa now as next year the "poo" will seriously hit the fan. Workers unions shall be hitting the streets next year, we shall be seeing students and workers uniting on a national scale. You'll witness scenes like last week across the country. I for one support it all (minus the damage to the memorial). We have to fight back, the Government don't care about peaceful protests. The only way to get at them is to cost them money and how do we do that? By mass damage to the country. Let the night skies light up with an orange glow.

You say cut back, we say fight back.

[FlyingJesus]

Do you honestly believe this is the end? Do you seriously believe we'll sit down and take it from the Government because they've passed this tosh?

Yes once you've stopped crying and realised that the changes benefit you


Our generation is the one which wasn't meant to look any further than Facebook, XBOX and X Factor and yet we've seen thousands turning out across the country to show the Government that we won't bend over for them like the previous generation did. We've witnessed school children abandoning lessons and taking to the streets.

What are you on about? Getting children to leave school isn't difficult lol


It's us who are meant to pay 9K a year (don't believe the hype, the vast majority will have to pay 9K) plus added interest. We're only allowed to pay it over years because it allows time for the interest to build up which equals more money to the Government.

Ok now you're just proving how little you know. The absolute minority will be paying 9k because there are only going to be a handful of institutions allowed to charge that much as a top fee, so I don't know where you're getting this "vast majority" idea. Furthermore, there is little to no interest on student loans - whoops! Got you again


It was amusing to see the red faces but then they tried to get revenge. They opted for heavy handed tactics, they kettled us and charged us with horses to try and eat away at our belief. This didn't work.

As you saw last week we turned out again, and we will continue turning out. The police are continuing using heavy handed tactics, ripping wheel chair users out of the wheel chairs and putting people in hospital to have brain operations. We shall not stand for this. If the police want to copy the Italian heavy handed approach then we shall copy our European friends in our fightback. As the old saying goes, fight fire with fire... the only difference is we will literally use fire like our European friends in Greece 2008.

What are you some sort of internet Castro wannabe? The students started the fights not the police, the only times the police have been "heavy handed" is when it's necessary, and the idea of LET'S GO HIT POLICEMEN THIS WILL SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS gives you absolutely no credibility and only serves to show you as a fool who is possibly a danger to a few individual persons but no great revolutionary. Kettling and horse charges weren't done because all policemen hate students or some such nonsense, it was done to contain the protests to the areas they were meant to be performed in, and it was people like you who think violence is the way to get a message across that forced the situation - the police are not to blame, you are.


If you thought last weeks violence was "scary" then I'd get behind the sofa now as next year the "poo" will seriously hit the fan. Workers unions shall be hitting the streets next year, we shall be seeing students and workers uniting on a national scale. You'll witness scenes like last week across the country.

Errr what have workers and unions got to do with this issue? Do you actually know what it is that you're protesting about?


We have to fight back, the Government don't care about peaceful protests. The only way to get at them is to cost them money and how do we do that? By mass damage to the country. Let the night skies light up with an orange glow.

You say cut back, we say fight back.

Spoken like a true hero fool. You want the government to give you money for nothing and the way you plan to get them to do so is... cost them more money. Congratulations. I don't know how old you are but personally I'm ashamed to say it took me until the age of 14 to realise that *+*AnArChY~+* is not cool or effective, I can only hope that your words and opinions come from the naïveté of youth rather than you actually believing them as a young adult

[CleggsTheDevil]

Yes once you've stopped crying and realised that the changes benefit you
The changes do not help me in anyway. Eight years ago a man achieved his degree for 1K, now students are being made to pay 6K to 9K on a mass scale. If I were to go to University I would be given a life full of debt with added interest which would fund the Governments Christmas bonuses and unwanted wars. The EMA cuts although do not affect me, will affect many young people. EMA shouldn't be cut although a new scheme should come into play. This scheme should offer bus tickets, train tickets, work tools and food tickets for the poorest students. It shouldn't be a mass cut, that's simply a stupid move.


What are you on about? Getting children to leave school isn't difficult lol
Getting children to come out and make speeches written by themselves about a political movement is difficult. These are political fuelled speeches which really are quite motivating and moving. Of course it's not hard to attract the filth of the society but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about children no more than 15 coming out onto the streets and attending meetings, talking to a vast amount of people who are considerably older than themselves. They show a lot of courage and confidence which they didn't have before, you can tell they're fully behind the movements.


Ok now you're just proving how little you know. The absolute minority will be paying 9k because there are only going to be a handful of institutions allowed to charge that much as a top fee, so I don't know where you're getting this "vast majority" idea. Furthermore, there is little to no interest on student loans - whoops! Got you again
Do not listen to the Government, after all several months ago they were telling us we wouldn't need to pay anything. You will have to pay 9K at most places and this will come with interest. The fees owed will mount up and you will be living with debt. Parents shouldn't need to send children into the world knowing when they turn eighteen they'll take on a huge amount of debt which will stick with them for years.


What are you some sort of internet Castro wannabe? The students started the fights not the police, the only times the police have been "heavy handed" is when it's necessary, and the idea of LET'S GO HIT POLICEMEN THIS WILL SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS gives you absolutely no credibility and only serves to show you as a fool who is possibly a danger to a few individual persons but no great revolutionary. Kettling and horse charges weren't done because all policemen hate students or some such nonsense, it was done to contain the protests to the areas they were meant to be performed in, and it was people like you who think violence is the way to get a message across that forced the situation - the police are not to blame, you are.

The students did not start the fights. The students simply didn't want to follow the intended route away from the media cameras and into a police kettle to be beaten. This was the plan of the filth. Instead we diverted away from here and picked up media cameras along the way preventing the police from having the planned fun. The police were trying to intimidate the crowd and covered up I.D's. People were told we could leave the kettle if we went to a certain area, at this area we were greeted by another police line with mounted police. This is where they told us to go back to where we came from, many didn't agree and told the police we were told to come here. At this point the filth withdrew the batons. I didn't state that you should hit officers although when they hand out force you should hand it back, after all we do live in an equal society do we not?

The kettling was a joke. Many of us were kept on a bridge until the early hours. We told them we had a coach to catch and they let two people out of the kettle, we had 50 people in our group to get the coach. We were given a number of insults and effectively made to stop in the poor excuse of a capital until the mega bus in the morning. The police implement the kettles to try and discourage people from attending. You get cold, hungry and tired and yet you're not allowed out. Then they boil over. The police know what they get from kettles. They boil just like your own kettle.


Errr what have workers and unions got to do with this issue? Do you actually know what it is that you're protesting about?
Please tell me you're not trying to debate with a man in a subject you do not fully know? The workers unions have always been a part of our campaigns. We're protesting against a number of things which have come from the Government cuts. Education is our main point but we shall link arms with our worker friends against the Government. They support us and we support them. We're all against the cuts together. Next year will be big, workers unions and students will be making a stand against the Government.


Spoken like a true hero fool. You want the government to give you money for nothing and the way you plan to get them to do so is... cost them more money. Congratulations. I don't know how old you are but personally I'm ashamed to say it took me until the age of 14 to realise that *+*AnArChY~+* is not cool or effective, I can only hope that your words and opinions come from the naïveté of youth rather than you actually believing them as a young adult
We are not anarchist's. We are groups of individuals from all over, students to workers to retired. We are all in it together. If the Government do not listen to us peacefully we shall look up to those who got rid of the poll tax and see how they achieved this. We shall also look at those who won women the vote. We shall not look at failures such as those who protested against the war in the early 2000's. They are failures, we shall not be failures.

We do not want to overthrow the Government or the police, we simply want to get our voice head over the sound of money in the MP's wallet's.

For the record I don't feel I need to state my age although I shall go on record and state that I am not fourteen.

We shall continue occupying Universities in 2011, for now Roscoe shall go on a break. We shall recover over Christmas and plan our movements for 2011 for the year will bring a lot of action on the streets and if we plan carefully we can make our voice heard. We shall not stand down. You're the type we're up against, thankfully we do not let your type affect our beliefs. We shall unite and shall not be a failure.

[Swastika]

I want to know the criteria of which you have to pass to be able to be classed as "poor".

[FlyingJesus]

The changes do not help me in anyway. Eight years ago a man achieved his degree for 1K, now students are being made to pay 6K to 9K on a mass scale. If I were to go to University I would be given a life full of debt with added interest which would fund the Governments Christmas bonuses and unwanted wars. The EMA cuts although do not affect me, will affect many young people. EMA shouldn't be cut although a new scheme should come into play. This scheme should offer bus tickets, train tickets, work tools and food tickets for the poorest students. It shouldn't be a mass cut, that's simply a stupid move.

The situation 8 years ago has nothing to do with this - compared to the current system, the changes being set in place will be helping future students. If tuition fees double (ie: 3k to 6k as is happening) that's around 9k extra cost overall, as most courses run over 3 years. Consider then that you don't pay anything back at all until you're earning 6k a year more than the current wage at which student loan repayments come into effect, meaning that even if for some reason you decide to pay it all off in 3 years you'd still spend those 3 years living as though you were on a substantially higher wage than what you'd currently be on and be paying back the loans if you were a graduate this year - I'd say that's helping you. Also EMA payments aren't getting cut they're just moving to the educational institutions themselves rather than being a government run thing, which is a good move


Getting children to come out and make speeches written by themselves about a political movement is difficult. These are political fuelled speeches which really are quite motivating and moving. Of course it's not hard to attract the filth of the society but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about children no more than 15 coming out onto the streets and attending meetings, talking to a vast amount of people who are considerably older than themselves. They show a lot of courage and confidence which they didn't have before, you can tell they're fully behind the movements.

Children have an opinion on everything, and in my experience have seldom been shy about expressing it. It's brave, sure, but it's nothing special and nothing new


Do not listen to the Government, after all several months ago they were telling us we wouldn't need to pay anything.

Well that's simply not true, that was just the leader of the what is now the junior partner of a coalition stating his long term intentions


You will have to pay 9K at most places and this will come with interest. The fees owed will mount up and you will be living with debt. Parents shouldn't need to send children into the world knowing when they turn eighteen they'll take on a huge amount of debt which will stick with them for years.

Regardless of the fact that I've already shown how the debt is very easily manageable, can you show some sort of evidence that "most" universities will be able to charge the 9k top fees (which due to the financial restrictions that come with it is simply not feasible for most universities) or that student loan interest is going to be some sort of hefty sum rather than the extremely low figure that it's always been? You can't just make statements like that and not back them up


The students did not start the fights.

Yes they did


The students simply didn't want to follow the intended route away from the media cameras and into a police kettle to be beaten. This was the plan of the filth.

Kettling wasn't set up for a long time (you've already mentioned the protest in November, which had very little police action and lots of student brutality/vandalism) and not following the intended route makes you no longer part of the peaceful protest. As for your hilarious assumption that the police were trying to force you into an area (which, by the way, was designated by the student union) for the sole purpose of beating you up, I don't know what American gang films you've been watching but that is not how they operate. Unless you have them on film saying "come along now children, hurry over here so we can start hitting you" it looks like you're just spouting utter rubbish


The police were trying to intimidate the crowd and covered up I.D's. People were told we could leave the kettle if we went to a certain area, at this area we were greeted by another police line with mounted police. This is where they told us to go back to where we came from, many didn't agree and told the police we were told to come here. At this point the filth withdrew the batons. I didn't state that you should hit officers although when they hand out force you should hand it back, after all we do live in an equal society do we not?

Hooray, more stupidity. OK, so it's annoying when you're told to do something and then when you do it are told differently, but is it really that difficult to comply with something as basic as moving? If you're clearly disobeying police orders to the point where they have to use force to get you to move on then that's your fault for not doing as you're told and protesting peacefully... and no, we don't live in an equal society and even if we did that doesn't mean you should attack the police when they try to apprehend you


The kettling was a joke. Many of us were kept on a bridge until the early hours. We told them we had a coach to catch and they let two people out of the kettle, we had 50 people in our group to get the coach. We were given a number of insults and effectively made to stop in the poor excuse of a capital until the mega bus in the morning. The police implement the kettles to try and discourage people from attending. You get cold, hungry and tired and yet you're not allowed out. Then they boil over. The police know what they get from kettles. They boil just like your own kettle.

You break away from peaceful protesting, you suffer consequences. What, you expect to be allowed to damage property and become part of illegal protest demos and then be allowed to walk off in a group of 50 just because you have an excuse about needing to catch a bus?


Please tell me you're not trying to debate with a man in a subject you do not fully know? The workers unions have always been a part of our campaigns. We're protesting against a number of things which have come from the Government cuts. Education is our main point but we shall link arms with our worker friends against the Government. They support us and we support them. We're all against the cuts together. Next year will be big, workers unions and students will be making a stand against the Government.

You are anything but a man if you believe the nonsense you're spewing, but regardless these are the student protests we're discussing. I don't claim to be an Arsenal fan just because they don't like Tottenham either


We are not anarchist's. We are groups of individuals from all over, students to workers to retired. We are all in it together. If the Government do not listen to us peacefully we shall look up to those who got rid of the poll tax and see how they achieved this.

Would you care to show me at what time during the student protests the entire thing was peaceful? It was attempted by the student union and those people were in fact given television debate time (during which they condemned the actions of people like you) but were outvoiced by rioters and fools


We shall also look at those who won women the vote.

By all means, jump under a horse


We do not want to overthrow the Government or the police, we simply want to get our voice head over the sound of money in the MP's wallet's.

Then raise a voice, not a fist


You're the type we're up against, thankfully we do not let your type affect our beliefs.

Yes you go ahead with not letting reason affect your beliefs. My "type" appears to be one that won't find themselves jailed for violence on a matter which never needed to go in that direction

[Conservative,]

I want to know the criteria of which you have to pass to be able to be classed as "poor".

Your family earning 16k or less per year.

[Spuds]

The situation 8 years ago has nothing to do with this - compared to the current system, the changes being set in place will be helping future students. If tuition fees double (ie: 3k to 6k as is happening) that's around 9k extra cost overall, as most courses run over 3 years. Consider then that you don't pay anything back at all until you're earning 6k a year more than the current wage at which student loan repayments come into effect, meaning that even if for some reason you decide to pay it all off in 3 years you'd still spend those 3 years living as though you were on a substantially higher wage than what you'd currently be on and be paying back the loans if you were a graduate this year - I'd say that's helping you. Also EMA payments aren't getting cut they're just moving to the educational institutions themselves rather than being a government run thing, which is a good move
They won't be helping. Students will be coming out of University with a life time of debt because of the new system. Just because you have the degree doesn't mean you'll get a well paid job. The new system is designed to put off poorer students and replace them with future David Cameron's. The Government are trying to implement the class system again whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The term "look after your own" is put into play by the poor excuse of a Government.


Children have an opinion on everything, and in my experience have seldom been shy about expressing it. It's brave, sure, but it's nothing special and nothing new
To express such powerful opinions which were seen over the last month by twelve year old's was brilliant. These are the same twelve year old's which are meant to play XBOX, watch X-Factor and not give a damn about politics and the 'real world'. They've realised something isn't quite right. They can't vote and yet the Government are forcing debt onto them when they're older. How is that right?


Well that's simply not true, that was just the leader of the what is now the junior partner of a coalition stating his long term intentions
And he's only in the coalition because he lied to the people. These are the people who got him in and now he's turned on them. The people are turning on him and he knows he's put himself in his own political coffin. The man is nothing more than a liar.


Regardless of the fact that I've already shown how the debt is very easily manageable, can you show some sort of evidence that "most" universities will be able to charge the 9k top fees (which due to the financial restrictions that come with it is simply not feasible for most universities) or that student loan interest is going to be some sort of hefty sum rather than the extremely low figure that it's always been? You can't just make statements like that and not back them up
All the evidence you need is sitting in Parliament. They lied to us, what's stopping them lying again? We have to fight back, they're nothing more than liars who we simply can't trust again. How can we believe them that they'll need special permission to charge 9K when they've already lied to us in a big way?


Yes they did
Were you there or watching the BBC which is funded by Government?


Kettling wasn't set up for a long time (you've already mentioned the protest in November, which had very little police action and lots of student brutality/vandalism) and not following the intended route makes you no longer part of the peaceful protest. As for your hilarious assumption that the police were trying to force you into an area (which, by the way, was designated by the student union) for the sole purpose of beating you up, I don't know what American gang films you've been watching but that is not how they operate. Unless you have them on film saying "come along now children, hurry over here so we can start hitting you" it looks like you're just spouting utter rubbish
Many police are there for a ruck. A policeman in Brighton asked a student how it was going in London and if the MET had "left any old vans for you guys again?". The police is riddled with corrupt men and women, it's a shame but that's how it is. The good are in the minority which is disgusting but that's how it is now.


Hooray, more stupidity. OK, so it's annoying when you're told to do something and then when you do it are told differently, but is it really that difficult to comply with something as basic as moving? If you're clearly disobeying police orders to the point where they have to use force to get you to move on then that's your fault for not doing as you're told and protesting peacefully... and no, we don't live in an equal society and even if we did that doesn't mean you should attack the police when they try to apprehend you
You go one way expecting to be let out, they then tell you to go back to where you came from. This was where it was kicking off initially. So they expect you to go back there and get hit by the police. People didn't want to do that so stayed, they then charged. A flare was thrown at the police to stop them beating a woman who fell on the floor and evidently injured so couldn't go back. They're utter filth. Check the news today and you'll see one stand out story without even looking into much detail.


You break away from peaceful protesting, you suffer consequences. What, you expect to be allowed to damage property and become part of illegal protest demos and then be allowed to walk off in a group of 50 just because you have an excuse about needing to catch a bus?
We didn't break the line, we followed the group and police directions because that time the other route was shut as the police wanted everyone in one area (on the green). We had no choice so it was hardly breaking the route. The filth said you could go if you were evidently not a trouble maker and yet we couldn't go.


You are anything but a man if you believe the nonsense you're spewing, but regardless these are the student protests we're discussing. I don't claim to be an Arsenal fan just because they don't like Tottenham either
Protests which are supported by others uniting against the cuts. Have you missed the big solidarity campaign? Jesus.


Would you care to show me at what time during the student protests the entire thing was peaceful? It was attempted by the student union and those people were in fact given television debate time (during which they condemned the actions of people like you) but were outvoiced by rioters and fools
The people like us want to get our voice heard. Lighting candles simply wont do it. The media are still obsessing over last week, I can't see them obsessing over a couple of candles.


Yes you go ahead with not letting reason affect your beliefs. My "type" appears to be one that won't find themselves jailed for violence on a matter which never needed to go in that direction
Your type will be the ones who will only moan when it affects them.

[Conservative,]

They won't be helping. Students will be coming out of University with a life time of debt because of the new system. Just because you have the degree doesn't mean you'll get a well paid job. The new system is designed to put off poorer students and replace them with future David Cameron's. The Government are trying to implement the class system again whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The term "look after your own" is put into play by the poor excuse of a Government.


To express such powerful opinions which were seen over the last month by twelve year old's was brilliant. These are the same twelve year old's which are meant to play XBOX, watch X-Factor and not give a damn about politics and the 'real world'. They've realised something isn't quite right. They can't vote and yet the Government are forcing debt onto them when they're older. How is that right?


And he's only in the coalition because he lied to the people. These are the people who got him in and now he's turned on them. The people are turning on him and he knows he's put himself in his own political coffin. The man is nothing more than a liar.


All the evidence you need is sitting in Parliament. They lied to us, what's stopping them lying again? We have to fight back, they're nothing more than liars who we simply can't trust again. How can we believe them that they'll need special permission to charge 9K when they've already lied to us in a big way?


Were you there or watching the BBC which is funded by Government?


Many police are there for a ruck. A policeman in Brighton asked a student how it was going in London and if the MET had "left any old vans for you guys again?". The police is riddled with corrupt men and women, it's a shame but that's how it is. The good are in the minority which is disgusting but that's how it is now.


You go one way expecting to be let out, they then tell you to go back to where you came from. This was where it was kicking off initially. So they expect you to go back there and get hit by the police. People didn't want to do that so stayed, they then charged. A flare was thrown at the police to stop them beating a woman who fell on the floor and evidently injured so couldn't go back. They're utter filth. Check the news today and you'll see one stand out story without even looking into much detail.


We didn't break the line, we followed the group and police directions because that time the other route was shut as the police wanted everyone in one area (on the green). We had no choice so it was hardly breaking the route. The filth said you could go if you were evidently not a trouble maker and yet we couldn't go.


Protests which are supported by others uniting against the cuts. Have you missed the big solidarity campaign? Jesus.


The people like us want to get our voice heard. Lighting candles simply wont do it. The media are still obsessing over last week, I can't see them obsessing over a couple of candles.


Your type will be the ones who will only moan when it affects them.

Okay I have a lot of things to rip at you from that.


Firstly...as FJ said, please show evidence how the fees are going to put us into "a life time of debt"? You can't base "evidence" on assumptions. The Government try not to lie...they say what they feel at the time, but they sometimes have to go back on that when it's necessary. I'm not saying every time a politician goes back on their word it's right but at least give him a break..he's using his brain now.

Secondly, stop referring to the police as "filth" they are anything but. They are the peace-keepers. YOU are the filth. If you think it's right to go off the organised route - told to or not - and vandalise several monumental places & buildings.

And finally...We won't be moaning. I cannot see a problem with £3k more debt per year when earning £6k more...USE YOUR LOGIC PLEASE.

[Spuds]

Okay I have a lot of things to rip at you from that.


Firstly...as FJ said, please show evidence how the fees are going to put us into "a life time of debt"? You can't base "evidence" on assumptions. The Government try not to lie...they say what they feel at the time, but they sometimes have to go back on that when it's necessary. I'm not saying every time a politician goes back on their word it's right but at least give him a break..he's using his brain now.

Secondly, stop referring to the police as "filth" they are anything but. They are the peace-keepers. YOU are the filth. If you think it's right to go off the organised route - told to or not - and vandalise several monumental places & buildings.

And finally...We won't be moaning. I cannot see a problem with £3k more debt per year when earning £6k more...USE YOUR LOGIC PLEASE.
May I ask what "rip" is? I presume it's a word used in the playground to make someone look like a fool? I'm not quite sure though as I've long since left the playground, perhaps you can shine some light on the situation for me though. It'll be a pleasure if you can lower me to your standard then we can discuss whether you "ripped" me or not. This presuming of course that "rip" generally does mean what I said, it was simply a stab in the dark by myself. So as I asked, please shine some light on this situation as checking your posts you've previously classed "ripped" as something which you wish to be. State of confusion is occurring at these headquarters.

My evidence occurred last week when Nick Clegg gave permission for the new system to come into place. If he generally meant what he told the students then he would go against the new scheme, instead he valued his political job more than his political beliefs. You could say it was a bit ironic considering his political job will be all but over come the next election. Clegg made a promise, a man should stick to his promise otherwise once broken it leaves someone unhappy (or in Clegg's case, thousands).

The police who ripped (should I use another word considering you used "rip" in a different context earlier, don't want to confuse matters) Jody McIntyre out of his wheelchair are filth. The officer who hit Alfie Meadows with his truncheon meaning he had to have a brain operation is filth. The list could go on, my next stop in the list would be the officers at G20. If you read my post I didn't agree with the vandalism of the memorial's.

You can't see a problem with an extra 9K or 18K debt? If you wish to be a doctor it'd be even more debt. The Government have reasons for this and it's simply not right.

[Conservative,]

May I ask what "rip" is? I presume it's a word used in the playground to make someone look like a fool? I'm not quite sure though as I've long since left the playground, perhaps you can shine some light on the situation for me though. It'll be a pleasure if you can lower me to your standard then we can discuss whether you "ripped" me or not. This presuming of course that "rip" generally does mean what I said, it was simply a stab in the dark by myself. So as I asked, please shine some light on this situation as checking your posts you've previously classed "ripped" as something which you wish to be. State of confusion is occurring at these headquarters.

My evidence occurred last week when Nick Clegg gave permission for the new system to come into place. If he generally meant what he told the students then he would go against the new scheme, instead he valued his political job more than his political beliefs. You could say it was a bit ironic considering his political job will be all but over come the next election. Clegg made a promise, a man should stick to his promise otherwise once broken it leaves someone unhappy (or in Clegg's case, thousands).

The police who ripped (should I use another word considering you used "rip" in a different context earlier, don't want to confuse matters) Jody McIntyre out of his wheelchair are filth. The officer who hit Alfie Meadows with his truncheon meaning he had to have a brain operation is filth. The list could go on, my next stop in the list would be the officers at G20. If you read my post I didn't agree with the vandalism of the memorial's.

You can't see a problem with an extra 9K or 18K debt? If you wish to be a doctor it'd be even more debt. The Government have reasons for this and it's simply not right.

Rip is argue/disagree/attack.

Anyway that is no evidence. I'm sorry but until you put up some statistics that the government are going to further change the system (which there is none so good luck) I will refuse to believe you.

The police may have been aggressive but they did have cause to...I disagree with the actions of pulling Jodie McIntyre out of his chair and of the truncheon, but that was 2 incidents, involving 2 police of thousands. Whereas the students there were several hundred if not thousands going off the stated path and causing chaos.

No I can't see a problem with £9k extra debt when you're going to be earning (after 3 years - the average time of study) £18k more than the old Government's system to even have to pay it.

[Catzsy]

Rip is argue/disagree/attack.

Anyway that is no evidence. I'm sorry but until you put up some statistics that the government are going to further change the system (which there is none so good luck) I will refuse to believe you.

The police may have been aggressive but they did have cause to...I disagree with the actions of pulling Jodie McIntyre out of his chair and of the truncheon, but that was 2 incidents, involving 2 police of thousands. Whereas the students there were several hundred if not thousands going off the stated path and causing chaos.

No I can't see a problem with £9k extra debt when you're going to be earning (after 3 years - the average time of study) £18k more than the old Government's system to even have to pay it.


Robbie that is 27K just in tuition fees. With living and books etc, etc we are talking about 50k for each student who will sometime want to buy a house and have this huge debt hanging over him. Answer me this why the students as opposed to Vodafone and other fat cats who owe
70 billion in taxes they have avoided. The way it is going on they will get away with it and we will all have to start paying health insurance etc, etc. This could be the beginning of a very long slippery road and unless you benefit from nothing from the state I do not know why you are so vocal about it. As far as the protests go the police have identified anarchists from all over the world as well as far left groups who have infiltrated what is otherwise a peaceful demonstration. I am not saying some of the student's were not easily led but I don't agree with the policy of the police to arrest afterwards. They know who the trouble makers are and they should hauled out as soon as they are seen. They do this to known football hoioligans.

[Conservative,]

Robbie that is 27K just in tuition fees. With living and books etc, etc we are talking about 50k for each student who will sometime want to buy a house and have this huge debt hanging over him. Answer me this why the students as opposed to Vodafone and other fat cats who owe
70 billion in taxes they have avoided. The way it is going on they will get away with it and we will all have to start paying health insurance etc, etc. This could be the beginning of a very long slippery road and unless you benefit from nothing from the state I do not know why you are so vocal about it. As far as the protests go the police have identified anarchists from all over the world as well as far left groups who have infiltrated what is otherwise a peaceful demonstration. I am not saying some of the student's were not easily led but I don't agree with the policy of the police to arrest afterwards. They know who the trouble makers are and they should hauled out as soon as they are seen. They do this to known football hoioligans.

You would spend £23k over 3 years on living fees? If you're going to go so crazy get a job...but I would say you could easily live only spend between £2-5k a year if you flat-share with friends.

And I am saying the EXTRA £3k per year is cancelled out by the extra £6k per year you will earn afterwards when having to pay it off...it makes sense? If you could afford to pay it upfront now, then with the extra £6k per year cancelling out the rise (and giving you £3k extra to spend on whatever) and you don't have to pay it up front. There's no interest rate until you're earning about £30k+ (can't remember exact figure) and so why everyone complaining is past me.

These changes leave you BETTER OFF.

The original fees: £3k per year
New fees: £6k (the normal maximum of 6k - only heightened for top Unis willing to give huge grants to poorer students)
difference = 3k

Current rate for paying back: 15k
New rate: 21k
difference = 6k

Do some simple year 4 maths = +3k to you!

[Catzsy]

You would spend £23k over 3 years on living fees? If you're going to go so crazy get a job...but I would say you could easily live only spend between £2-5k a year if you flat-share with friends.

And I am saying the EXTRA £3k per year is cancelled out by the extra £6k per year you will earn afterwards when having to pay it off...it makes sense? If you could afford to pay it upfront now, then with the extra £6k per year cancelling out the rise (and giving you £3k extra to spend on whatever) and you don't have to pay it up front. There's no interest rate until you're earning about £30k+ (can't remember exact figure) and so why everyone complaining is past me.

These changes leave you BETTER OFF.

The original fees: £3k per year
New fees: £6k (the normal maximum of 6k - only heightened for top Unis willing to give huge grants to poorer students)
difference = 3k

Current rate for paying back: 15k
New rate: 21k
difference = 6k

Do some simple year 4 maths = +3k to you!

Answer my questions Robbie. I don't need a lesson in Maths. :P

[Conservative,]

Answer my questions Robbie. I don't need a lesson in Maths. :P

I don't know if I'm totally honest. They may owe money in taxes, and I'd be surprised if the Government didn't tighten on tax avoidance & being tougher on benefit frauds & people claiming job-seekers allowance when they could've had jobs and not taken them. But it's the choice that's been taken, and in reality, people aren't complaining about that. They're complaining about people having to pay more. But they would know this is not the case if they did the maths :)

[AgnesIO]

Oh how kind of the government.

Giving the poorest students free tuition. THOSE OF US WITH MORE MONEY THAN OTHERS ARE NOT MULTI BILLIONAIRES. We STILL have to pay for the fees, we STILL get loans out to pay for it. The government is covering up a major issue with this. Hardly anyone will get this tuition - and guess what? If you don't count as one of the 'poorest' students, you will be paying for the 'poor' students to go to university.

If they are going to put fees up, why not charge EVERYONE the same - instead of making some people pay for some others to go to university.

[Catzsy]

I don't know if I'm totally honest. They may owe money in taxes, and I'd be surprised if the Government didn't tighten on tax avoidance & being tougher on benefit frauds & people claiming job-seekers allowance when they could've had jobs and not taken them. But it's the choice that's been taken, and in reality, people aren't complaining about that. They're complaining about people having to pay more. But they would know this is not the case if they did the maths :)

The amount owed by benefit fraud is 1b. The amount owed by tax avoiding companies is 70b.
It does not take a rocket scientist to work out which they don't want to tackle and there is nothing so far to suggest they are even going to try considering they are closing some of the fraud offices down in the Inland Revenue. I don't complain about paying £3,600 odd for tuition fees which will work out to about 11/12k debt. Thing is you seem to think students would be better off under the new system. How is owing 40/50k better than owing about 15k? It still has to be paid probably for the rest of their working lives whereas presently it could be paid off in 10 years. Also it accrues interest so obviously that will be a lot more on a larger sum. When somebody goes for a mortgage the bank/building society have to take into account how much debt a person has so this policy has a double edged sword to it.

[FlyingJesus]

They won't be helping. Students will be coming out of University with a life time of debt because of the new system. Just because you have the degree doesn't mean you'll get a well paid job. The new system is designed to put off poorer students and replace them with future David Cameron's. The Government are trying to implement the class system again whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The term "look after your own" is put into play by the poor excuse of a Government.

You call it a lifetime of debt yet I quite clearly explained that if someone was sufficiently moved to do so they could even pay it all back in 3 years without having to live in any kind of squalor once they're earning over the threshold for repayments to start. Most would choose to pay it back over a longer period as it would be even easier of course, but again they would be earning a lot more so it isn't an issue. A degree doesn't mean a well paid job, you're right, but until you have a well paid job you're not paying back the loan at all - the only people who will be put off are people who cannot do the maths and work out that frankly there's a pretty decent likelihood of never having to pay the loan back at all


And he's only in the coalition because he lied to the people. These are the people who got him in and now he's turned on them. The people are turning on him and he knows he's put himself in his own political coffin. The man is nothing more than a liar.

I agree with your synopsis of Clegg's rise to power, but that has nothing to do with what the government has said as was suggested


All the evidence you need is sitting in Parliament. They lied to us, what's stopping them lying again? We have to fight back, they're nothing more than liars who we simply can't trust again. How can we believe them that they'll need special permission to charge 9K when they've already lied to us in a big way?

That's not evidence, that supposition and distrust - however valid your reasons for such feelings may be, it does not amount to evidence and you absolutely cannot claim that the entire policy is somehow radically different to the paper on which it was signed. There is a huge difference between a man not being able to keep his promises because he doesn't fight hard enough for them and an entire government ignoring law and policy


Were you there or watching the BBC which is funded by Government?

Neither, I heard it from the student unions and the peaceful protesters who believe you to be an embarrassment


You go one way expecting to be let out, they then tell you to go back to where you came from. This was where it was kicking off initially. So they expect you to go back there and get hit by the police. People didn't want to do that so stayed, they then charged. A flare was thrown at the police to stop them beating a woman who fell on the floor and evidently injured so couldn't go back. They're utter filth. Check the news today and you'll see one stand out story without even looking into much detail.

As I said, yes it would be annoying to be in such a situation but it's down to you complying or not complying with police orders. You can't expect to have a protest and just get your way with every movement you make


We didn't break the line
The students simply didn't want to follow the intended route

Is that a fact?


Your type will be the ones who will only moan when it affects them.

It does affect me - I'm now planning to actually go to uni at some point because of how cheap/free I can make it in the long run

[Conservative,]

The amount owed by benefit fraud is 1b. The amount owed by tax avoiding companies is 70b.
It does not take a rocket scientist to work out which they don't want to tackle and there is nothing so far to suggest they are even going to try considering they are closing some of the fraud offices down in the Inland Revenue. I don't complain about paying £3,600 odd for tuition fees which will work out to about 11/12k debt. Thing is you seem to think students would be better off under the new system. How is owing 40/50k better than owing about 15k? It still has to be paid probably for the rest of their working lives whereas presently it could be paid off in 10 years. Also it accrues interest so obviously that will be a lot more on a larger sum. When somebody goes for a mortgage the bank/building society have to take into account how much debt a person has so this policy has a double edged sword to it.

I've said before.

It only gets interest if you're owning over a certain amount (something like 30k+) and I also have said it may be more debt, but you're also getting MORE money back. As I have showed you - it gives you £3k MORE than the current system in which to pay off the debts. It may be more debt, but it's also more money back to you. £15k isn't a lot to live on when you're paying debts, food, mortgage ect. £21k, despite only being £6k more...is a lot more comfortable.

I am not saying the government shouldn't chase up on the tax avoidance but that's for a different discussion in which we would agree they need to do that.

And you keep saying £15k debt as opposed to £40-50k debt yet you are not giving any sort of reason as to why a complete and absolute maximum - reserved only for the best Uni's who are willing to give huge grants - of £27k is jumping to £50k? And £11-12k only going to £15k.

The maximum debt I expect to be in when I hopefully get into & leave Cambridge (all assuming I do) is £30k. Then i can go into the working world and get a job. If it pays less than £21k, the debt is basically non-existent. If I get a job that pays more, I then by that time have enough money to know I can pay that off reasonably in 10 years - £3k per year leaving me with £18k (or more) to spend on living & luxuries. If I'm earning 30k+ (or whatever it is) and it's earning interest (at the current rate of 1.2%) I'd be able to pay it off in 6-7 years - £5k per year leaving me 25k to spend on living/luxuries.

If I went now my family would have to fork out £15k+ AND money for living. WITH interest if we couldn't pay it upfront. So really...I think students win.

[Catzsy]

I've said before.

It only gets interest if you're owning over a certain amount (something like 30k+) and I also have said it may be more debt, but you're also getting MORE money back. As I have showed you - it gives you £3k MORE than the current system in which to pay off the debts. It may be more debt, but it's also more money back to you. £15k isn't a lot to live on when you're paying debts, food, mortgage ect. £21k, despite only being £6k more...is a lot more comfortable.

I am not saying the government shouldn't chase up on the tax avoidance but that's for a different discussion in which we would agree they need to do that.

And you keep saying £15k debt as opposed to £40-50k debt yet you are not giving any sort of reason as to why a complete and absolute maximum - reserved only for the best Uni's who are willing to give huge grants - of £27k is jumping to £50k? And £11-12k only going to £15k.

The maximum debt I expect to be in when I hopefully get into & leave Cambridge (all assuming I do) is £30k. Then i can go into the working world and get a job. If it pays less than £21k, the debt is basically non-existent. If I get a job that pays more, I then by that time have enough money to know I can pay that off reasonably in 10 years - £3k per year leaving me with £18k (or more) to spend on living & luxuries. If I'm earning 30k+ (or whatever it is) and it's earning interest (at the current rate of 1.2%) I'd be able to pay it off in 6-7 years - £5k per year leaving me 25k to spend on living/luxuries.

If I went now my family would have to fork out £15k+ AND money for living. WITH interest if we couldn't pay it upfront. So really...I think students win.

Well you are wrong about the interest - all the loan attracts it. Also they are switching to RPI and it is estimated they will rise to 4.4 % pretty quickly. You are lucky to have a family who could fork out 15k for you. Most famililies could not afford to and so they would have to borrow the living expenses as well. so that raises it to about 40/ 50k. As far as a job goes - most student's do have them but obviously you are not expecting them to work full-time whilst studying for a degree are you? Part time work and what they can borrow for living expenses leaves them pretty much on the breadline as it is. We will have to agree to disagree on this one because I believe we should be investing in the future of this country by supporting those who undoubtably will paying more tax in the future than those who don't go to University.

[FlyingJesus]

Rosie are you suggesting then that the living costs of being a student (ie: the money not concerned with tuition fees) is over and around 20k? I don't know how much living as a student costs but that doesn't add up right with the other figures you're stating as 6k x 3 = 18k, so taking it to 40k adds on 22k in these expenses, in which case I can't work out where you're getting 15k as a figure for the total current debt for uni leavers

[Spuds]

The Government lie and they're going to find out in 2011 that they can't do it anymore. The workers unions will be hitting the streets which will bring down cities when subways, buses etc stop and they'll be uniting with students. #solidarity

[Catzsy]

Rosie are you suggesting then that the living costs of being a student (ie: the money not concerned with tuition fees) is over and around 20k? I don't know how much living as a student costs but that doesn't add up right with the other figures you're stating as 6k x 3 = 18k, so taking it to 40k adds on 22k in these expenses, in which case I can't work out where you're getting 15k as a figure for the total current debt for uni leavers

Because at the moment I get a maintenance grant + maintenance loan which will all be gone under the new system.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Government lie and they're going to find out in 2011 that they can't do it anymore. The workers unions will be hitting the streets which will bring down cities when subways, buses etc stop and they'll be uniting with students. #solidarity

Oh yes the Unions, the Unions who do the dirty work of the Labour Party. Funny how we never had this madness back in 2001 when Labour did more or less the exact same thing, but then I guess thats just the thuggish mentality of the left in general which we saw in the 1980s.

I'm not sure what your political stance is yourself, but you should be aware that half the people complaining on this forum are only complaining because its the Conservatives/Liberal Democrats doing this, as opposed to the Labour Party - which, again, did more or less the same thing back in 2001 after promising not to before the General Election yet they all still think Labour are somehow more trustworthy and just when it comes to this.

Thus proving they are so deep into party politics, they don't actually care about the issue at hand or the country itself.

[Conservative,]

Oh yes the Unions, the Unions who do the dirty work of the Labour Party. Funny how we never had this madness back in 2001 when Labour did more or less the exact same thing, but then I guess thats just the thuggish mentality of the left in general which we saw in the 1980s.

Don't you love it how they never do ANYTHING when Labour are in power - despite they actually introduced the fees and whatever else. The Unions think labour represents everything about them - but how wrong they are. No - the Tories don't either, I'll say that now, but honestly, Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, they're all as bad as each other. The Unions should have their own party if they want true representation because their current - Labour - who they seem to be blindly in love with - just backstab them, yet they be quiet. As soon as the Tories come in and do smaller adjustments, changes or cuts, the Unions are all out striking. I think they need to go home and do some thinking.

[FlyingJesus]

half the people complaining on this forum are only complaining because its the Conservatives/Liberal Democrats doing this, as opposed to the Labour Party

I disagree, I think people are into the issue now because it's actually starting to affect them, and as socialist and equality-loving as anyone might pretend to be what we all really want is what's best for ourselves

[Inseriousity.]

Half the people on this forum were probably in primary school in 2001 and probably didn't have any idea of what was going on. I didn't when I was 9. I think you're probably right that the unions didn't get involved because it wasn't the "tory scum" making the change but I don't have allegiances with any party. If the Labour party were going to make some unis charge 9000, the rest charge 6000, I'd disagree with it. If they said, all unis will be capped at 6000, I wouldn't.

[Conservative,]

Half the people on this forum were probably in primary school in 2001 and probably didn't have any idea of what was going on. I didn't when I was 9. I think you're probably right that the unions didn't get involved because it wasn't the "tory scum" making the change but I don't have allegiances with any party. If the Labour party were going to make some unis charge 9000, the rest charge 6000, I'd disagree with it. If they said, all unis will be capped at 6000, I wouldn't.

You forget Labour brought in tuition fees in the first place - despite pledging not to.

Can't wait to get out of this country tbh. I'll study here (ironic I know), then I'm moving :l

[Inseriousity.]

I didn't forget as I said in my previous post I was 9 in 2001 but at least they capped it. Every uni charges the same. Under this new scheme, unis don't charge the same so I don't agree with the plans.

[Conservative,]

I didn't forget as I said in my previous post I was 9 in 2001 but at least they capped it. Every uni charges the same. Under this new scheme, unis don't charge the same so I don't agree with the plans.

It's fairer if the better Unis charge more imo. Then not every man and his dog can go to Oxbridge or that. You have to EARN it. And anyway, those going to the higher-charging Uni's will be earning more after (proven fact that Oxbridge graduates earn on average 30% more than someone with a normal degree).

[Inseriousity.]

You have to earn it? Oh so getting three As isn't enough, you also need to pay 3k more a year than a normal uni.

[Conservative,]

You have to earn it? Oh so getting three As isn't enough, you also need to pay 3k more a year than a normal uni.

Yes. And anyway for Cambridge you need 2 A's and 1 A* (for maths anyway). You're paying 3k more for the best tuition in the world and the knowledge that - should you want to you can:

A) Get a masters degree without doing an extra year (you pay something like £100 and can get a Masters in the form of: Cantab (Ma) or Oxon (Ma) without doing the extra year - what an awesome perk)
B) Earn 30% (on average) more than a normal degree holder.

I don't mind paying 3k a year more for that.

[Barmi]

Yes. And anyway for Cambridge you need 2 A's and 1 A* (for maths anyway). You're paying 3k more for the best tuition in the world and the knowledge that - should you want to you can:

A) Get a masters degree without doing an extra year (you pay something like £100 and can get a Masters in the form of: Cantab (Ma) or Oxon (Ma) without doing the extra year - what an awesome perk)
B) Earn 30% (on average) more than a normal degree holder.

I don't mind paying 3k a year more for that.
The comment about MA is absolute ********. An MA, MSc or LLM is a postgraduate qualification and cannot be 'bought' so I suggest you stop indulging in rumours and fantasy.

Before you ask what authority I have this on, I'm a third year Cambridge undergraduate in Law so I have a fair idea of how the courses work here.

Note to the moderators: purpose of the bump was for correction of an error. It's 2 months late but I don't believe corrections are pointless.