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

[-: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.