Student fee 'savings' will fund windmills in Africa

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8196410/Student-fee-savings-will-fund-windmills-in-Africa.html

Student fee 'savings' will fund windmills in Africa

The £2.9 billion the Government will save by increasing tuition fees matches the amount earmarked for a global warming project, finds Christopher Booker.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01781/student-protest-1_1781926c.jpg



The cause of the major political story of last week – the row over tuition fees, students rioting and all – was, as we all know, “public spending cuts”. But how much money does the Government actually hope to save on tuition fees? If the immediate problem is our massive state deficit, it seems odd that the Government should risk such unpopularity, not for any immediate saving, but in the hope that it will get the money back over the next 30 years, as students can afford to repay it.

In the short term, the Government’s own projection as to how much it will save is that the funding of university tuition will be cut by £2.9 billion by 2014. As it happens, £2.9 billion is the sum ring-fenced, by the same public spending review, to be given to developing countries to help them fight global warming with windmills and solar panels. It is also slightly less than the £3 billion by which our public debt is rising every week. These much-vaunted “cuts” are not all we are led to believe.

I remember reading just after the 'cuts' were announced (which we do need as we have a debt of nearly £7tn and growing) that infact, there are no cuts - the debt is due to continue rising and all these cuts amount to is a shift of government spending priorities. The thread got little attention and died amid the flurry of argument over cuts and where they should fall.

Well yesterday I was looking around again and watched a piece by economist Jim Rogers who did a video with his thoughts on Britain and its debt outlook going into the future. He confirmed what I had read which is that there are no 'cuts' in government expenditure and that government expenditure is actually due to rise by a considerable amount for the 2014/15 period.

Now even if this government was cutting to get the debt down (which it is not, as the figures show) I would still be asking why we are cutting things such as education and so forth rather than cutting foreign aid (£10bn+), EU direct contributions (£10bn+) or the climate change bill (£18bn+) - all of these are what we spend every year on what most normal-minded people would consider a total waste of their money and thats not to mention the costs of the legislation that derives from all that.

But the fact is that its not even due to make an impact on our debt, our debt is due to continue to rise yet home fronts are being cut back and we are being charged more, for less of a service while money of literally thrown away on the wasteful and greedy European Union, the non-problem of global warming and foreign aid to third world tinpot countries. But for the sake of party politics, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party are pretending to be cutting (when infact merely doing what Labour did while in office concerning budgets) and Labour are pretending to be opposing these 'cuts' when infact there are none.

We need major cuts period. It is economic reality that one day this ever-rising bill will need to be paid back by everyone in this country and we risk going bankrupt, throwing more money away every year on interest payments (we now already spend more on paying back debt interest than we do on the entire education budget in this country). But these are no cuts, we are essentially in the same status quo - only with a new angle of pretence placed upon us all.

We are being conned.

Thoughts?

[Conservative,]

I backed the rises in tuition fees...until I saw this.

WHAT ABSOLUTE ****. I'm all for raising tuition fees to pay back some debt...but to fight a non-existent cause in a foreign country.

that's not right. AT ALL.

[dbgtz]

we all know what will happen to. "Hey africa, hes some money go buy some windmills", "yeah ok..." *buys some luxuries for themselves*. **** our government.

[Sharon]

and this is our problem because ...

blatently causing our country more problems to save somewhere else

[MrPinkPanther]

Christopher Booker? The guy who says Asbestos, BSE and Passive Smoking are "Harmless"? Forgive me if I take this article with a pinch of salt.

[Dean]

Doesn't surprise me if this is true, welcome to the United Kingdom guys, enjoy your stay...

[-:Undertaker:-]

Christopher Booker? The guy who says Asbestos, BSE and Passive Smoking are "Harmless"? Forgive me if I take this article with a pinch of salt.

Well i'd have to agree with him because quite frankly i'm sick of overreactions to the smallest health risks such as smoking and asbestos, my house backs onto a bingo hall with an asbestos roof that poses no threat to me and even if it fell down into my garden it would still pose no threat to my health - the only threat asbestos would pose to me if I was handling it for a prolonged number of years, and the same can be said for builders in general who can eventually suffer from prolonged exposure to plaster dust.

The passive smoking issue is, again, absolute nonsense - what amazes me is that everybody running scared from passive smoking probably had no issue with sitting in a smoke filled pub, but now that its banned its made into a life or death situation when you suggest that perhaps the law is draconian (being a Liberal Democrat i'd expect you to understand that). What are you [the headless chicken lobby] going to ban next? salt? fatty foods? sex itself which leads to HIV/Aids (afterall all of these are intentional inflicted damage) or maybe even cars considering the number of people who die in them every year - really now, lets get a grip for once.

Now run along and go and read some Polly Toynbee articles on how we have everything to be fearful of from Margaret Thatcher to the Daily Mail, from Tory cuts to global warming - with anyluck Polly will write a lecture (as she usually does) on how we should all be ashamed to fly and how we should all pay high green taxes as punishment for it despite the fact she herself often flies over to her Italian villa. But then again as with most people on the left, the rules don't apply to themselves or their own ilk.

Not sure whether I can put this in (contains swearing) but he just sums it up perfectly;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4&feature=player_embedded

[Zak]

This is what the UK is wasting its money on? This is a joke surely.

The UK is now a sinking ship, I hope to get off it asap.

[Ajthedragon]

This would of happened if fees hadn't been risen. It just happens to be the same amount :rolleyes:

[Chippiewill]

Words can not express..

Oh wait they can... but rules forbid. Aww shucks. Anyways, what does africa need a windmill for, instead it could be invested in education and then have a greater return of better results.

[HotelUser]

Giving Africa windmills?

Maybe we should give them clean water first :P

[Chippiewill]

Giving Africa windmills?

Maybe we should give them clean water first :P

Maybe we should sort ourselves out first.

[Oleh]

No wonder we're always in debt. Giving away billions and getting no return..

I don't know how nothing has changed in the way the countries run tbh.

[Catzsy]

Not that I agree with this government but another misleading article by the Telegraph.


In the short term, the Government’s own projection as to how much it will save is that the funding of university tuition will be cut by £2.9 billion by 2014. As it happens, £2.9 billion is the sum ring-fenced, by the same public spending review, to be given to developing countries to help them fight global warming with windmills and solar panels. It is also slightly less than the £3 billion by which our public debt is rising every week. These much-vaunted “cuts” are not all we are led to believe.

Where is there anywhere in this article does it specifically say that the money saved on tuition fees is going to go to 'Africa'. Assumption is far from hard facts.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not that I agree with this government..

Yes you do, as this government is doing the exact same as the last government did which you defended to the hilt.


but another misleading article by the Telegraph.

Where is there anywhere in this article does it specifically say that the money saved on tuition fees is going to go to 'Africa'. Assumption is far from hard facts.

I think is basic common sense/mathematics really, the government have cut funding in one area (thus making us pay more for umiversity fees) and have diverted it to fund windmills in Africa, not to make savings as the government likes to claim.

So no, the article isn't misleading in the slightest.

[Chippiewill]

Not that I agree with this government but another misleading article by the Telegraph.



Where is there anywhere in this article does it specifically say that the money saved on tuition fees is going to go to 'Africa'. Assumption is far from hard facts.

Whilst it does not say that they the money saved by University is going straight to africa, £2.9b will be saved and £2.9b will be spent, wow a coincidence? No such thing.

[Swastika]

Absolutely disgusting.
This country should really address it's own problems first, without sounding in-sensitive (not) - Africa has plenty of money streaming into it without the UK's help.

[Catzsy]

Yes you do, as this government is doing the exact same as the last government did which you defended to the hilt.

Nothing like the last government.




I think is basic common sense/mathematics really, the government have cut funding in one area (thus making us pay more for umiversity fees) and have diverted it to fund windmills in Africa, not to make savings as the government likes to claim.

So no, the article isn't misleading in the slightest.

Of course it is. Where is it in black and white from a realible government source quoted by the paper that this is what is happening. They are scaremongering as usual and you are aiding them in this quest as usual. As I understand it the money saved on tuition fees is going to pay for the pupil premiums as quoted by Clegg and Cameron on many occasions.

[MrPinkPanther]

Different departments have their own independent budgets. Education and international aid aren't in the same department. This article is not true. </thread>

[Jordy]

Different departments have their own independent budgets. Education and international aid aren't in the same department. This article is not true. </thread>This is true, I don't think the Coalition is deliberately "diverting" money either as it simply doesn't work like that but that's not to say I agree with money being spent on "windmills in Africa".

However it's good to remember commitments to climate change etc rarely account to much, countries always pledge humongous amounts of money at summits but not often does it account to anything. For instance only 2% of money pledged to Haiti by government's following the Earthquake has actually reached Haiti: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-14/world/haiti.donations_1_haitian-government-pledges-interim-haiti-recovery-commission?_s=PM:WORLD

Be very sceptical of pledges.

[Chippiewill]

If we're making cuts then why aren't we making cuts to what we give to others?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Nothing like the last government.

Why, whats changed? we still give and continue to increase enormous sums to the European Union, we still give enormous sums (and have increased) the amount we give in foreign aid - we still are running into severe debt, we still fight useless wars on behalf of another country, we still continue (this thread is an example of this) to charge the British people more and more at home while costs spiral and we continue spending money on things that if people had any control over their own money, they would not want it spent on.

So I ask, what has changed?


Of course it is. Where is it in black and white from a realible government source quoted by the paper that this is what is happening. They are scaremongering as usual and you are aiding them in this quest as usual. As I understand it the money saved on tuition fees is going to pay for the pupil premiums as quoted by Clegg and Cameron on many occasions.

Because the money to climate change is increasing, which will not get the debt down - the reason we are being made to pay £3,000 to £6,000 more for university. You know, "we're all in this together" and so forth? Why should the British people be charged more, for less of a service?


Different departments have their own independent budgets. Education and international aid aren't in the same department. This article is not true. </thread>

So why aren't the following being cut?; the climate change budget, the EU budget and the foreign aid budget to name the three prime examples of complete and utter waste on a disgusting scale. We are throwing away billions whilst running up a huge debt, whilst asking our people to still pay more towards this waste.

Give people a break.


This is true, I don't think the Coalition is deliberately "diverting" money either as it simply doesn't work like that but that's not to say I agree with money being spent on "windmills in Africa".

However it's good to remember commitments to climate change etc rarely account to much, countries always pledge humongous amounts of money at summits but not often does it account to anything. For instance only 2% of money pledged to Haiti by government's following the Earthquake has actually reached Haiti: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-14/world/haiti.donations_1_haitian-government-pledges-interim-haiti-recovery-commission?_s=PM:WORLD

Be very sceptical of pledges.

£18bn a year is spent on 'tackling' global warming directly from the climate change act, thats not to mention the rest of the revenue the government raises via green taxation.

[hairpins]

btw just so yew no da govament wont save ne moneyz bi makin pplz pay 9 grand 4 sum education
coz how many pplz have £9000+ a year spair? PMSL

da govament r gonna have 2 lend pplz MORE moni 2 go 2 uni which meens they r gnna have 2 borrow more moni… increesin the countries debt woo

[Jordy]

btw just so yew no da govament wont save ne moneyz bi makin pplz pay 9 grand 4 sum education
coz how many pplz have £9000+ a year spair? PMSL

da govament r gonna have 2 lend pplz MORE moni 2 go 2 uni which meens they r gnna have 2 borrow more moni… increesin the countries debt wooso by ya rekoning den we shudnt pay taxes cos we cnt afford 2 pay dem. ow will da govamant get outta debt?

[hairpins]

so by ya rekoning den we shudnt pay taxes cos we cnt afford 2 pay dem. ow will da govamant get outta debt?

eye dunt get yew hun sorri xoxo

wot eye am sayin iz da govament r sayin increesin dese fees wil generate more moneyz n pay off sum of da countries debt
but rly dey wont will dey coz da student loanz compani r gonna have 2 lend students £9000 a year instead of £3000… so da govament iz gonna have 2 borrow more moni to lend 2 da students……………………

but den agen dey will get loadz of moni from da students wen dey pay back der loanz coz dey r gonna be payin them bk 4 da rest of der lives. omg and with credit card intrest r8s applied to dem pmsl…x

o and ontop a gradu8 tax wtbobba ??????

[AgnesIO]

This really infuriates me.

Why save a world, that is going to end eventually anyway. Why not enjoy the lives we have - we won't speed up the end of the world that much anyway. Maybe a few hundred million years - which is nothing compared to the 13 billion years the world has already existed for.

[GommeInc]

Can I just say briefly that, although the Government have diverted funds away from full-time study, the Government is now supporting part-time study where students studying at 25% of their time are now eligible for loans and financial support. So the money the Government is saving is actually being poured back into Education by allowing greater assistance for part-time students. So not entirely accurate.