91Èȱ¬

Does anyone here remember the Poll Tax introduced by Margret Thatcher in the 80s and what happend afterwards(mass proetsts in London etc)

This is a situation that will repeat itsself.Its massivly unpopular this policy and to be honest absolutly daft!

Education is the key to our prosperity!

Education should not be available on ability to pay it should be a RIGHT!

The 3 billion saved here should be clawed back from who benefited from the bank bail out and the banks themselves!

This is the most sickening thing of all!

What about opting out of the EU would save about 6 billion quid...Think about it....

Best warm David Davies up for a leadership election and then a general election and get a real government that is prepared to sort out labours mess

No great surprise but a great disappointment.

Very little lies ahead since this is most contentious issue that the coaltition faced as a direct result of policy.

The Libdems will face trouble if/when the AV referendum is lost and it dawns on the party that they traded all their principles for a absolutely nothing. Then Clegg could be in serious trouble.

Waht is likely given this small ascare for teh ConDems is that Vincey bioy will need to take great care with his white paper to make sure that every concession exacted from his back benchers is delivered.

Nick you are quite right - this does not bode well for the LibDem future - a few wobbles in the Scottish and local elections come May and there may be a few more in their party who wish, for their electoral comfort, to be dissociated from the coalition's cuts and more extreme and regressive policies. This is far from being over I suggest.

I do think the guillotine of 5 hours to ruch through somehting of such strategic and ling term importance was a disgrace and I hope to see a more appropriate timeframe for discussion in the future.

Let's hope that this is the death knell for the graduate tax. What an unafir and impractical idea. Telling that the NUS and Ed Miliband were in favour of it.

Come off it Nick. The government passed this measure with a much larger majority than you expected.

GOOD! The propsed scheme is very very generous to graduates and NO students at all will have to pay anything for their education. There will not be any students charged at all. some GRADUATES will be required to repay, but only if and when they can easily afford to.

These will give very very easily affordable loans to anyone who chooses to go to university from any background.

They are like a bookies who only asks you to pay your stake money on bets if, and only if, your bet wins. It is wholly and completely risk free.

If I opened a bookies on those terms, I would have queues of customers around the block, but I would become bankrupt inside a day!

I would LOVE for my mortgage to be on these same overly generous terms.

These rioting students are claiming to be anarchists, and asking for INCREASED state intervention? They are too confused to be ever in the position to have to repay their loans. Anarchists wanting more state? Sheesh, I have heard everything now. Next there will be socialist students rioting because the Government will be asking the rich to pay more to their own education and the poor pay less or nothing!!!

Wait... They are already???

Kick all the rioters out of University, they are clearly not intelligent enough to get a degree.

This was a shocking decision that will put students from middle income families in huge debt if they go to university. A student from such a family could expect a debt of around £45,000 on graduation when living costs are taken into account and a graduate couple a combined debt of £90,000. That is simply unfair and unreasonable and will put off able students from university education. How could such a couple start life together, get a mortgage and start a family?

The "concessions" about when graduates start to pay off their loans will condemn many of those students to a working life of perpetual debt as interest charges will continue to accrue. To say that won't put off poor students of high academic ability from going to university is simply stupid.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of this decision is that the Welsh Assembly is going to pay the addition cost of any Welsh student attending an English University. If they can afford that, it is clear that there is no need to treble university fees for English students going to English universities.

Predictable - tories were obiviously going to vote for it.

LibDems are addicted to their grubby power agreement.

Well thank goodness that's over.

Amazing how many of those students didn't seem to understand what it was they were protesting against.

Now they will have time to look into it fully they will see it won't even affect those making all the noise.

They've had their protest so perhaps they can leave the next lot of students to make up their own minds without having pressure put on them of having to go to university {any university will do} or being seen as a loser.

The most progressive move of all is the one least talked about.

The opportunity for those wanting to upskill or change careers later on to study part-time at university and have the available funding up front to do so.

This really is squeezing the middle. And the lower middle. But what to do? I don't rate the "graduate tax" idea either. Guess we could look at funding out of general taxation but ordinary people seem to hate the idea of paying more tax. Doesn't matter what the likes of me say, they just won't go for it.

One thing people might consider if they're hard pressed - and want to fund their offspring through uni and keep them free of debt - is to take them out of private school; assuming they're in and assuming they're only in the 4th form or something. This would save a packet, probably more than enough to do the job.

Would also act to shrink the private schools sector so, you know, every cloud ...

5. One_Lars_Melvang wrote:
Let's hope that this is the death knell for the graduate tax. What an unafir and impractical idea. Telling that the NUS and Ed Miliband were in favour of it.

the sheer bare faced cheek of labour today shone out like a beacon.
we are told they want to open up the party to policy - with input from "the people" and various official and voluntary bodies - by starting a two year plan with a blank sheet, open to all ideas etc.
so when almost all universities state they want the legislation passed today - labour verbally oppose it and vote against what the universities want

official bodies also point out that this is the best of the options, adding that it will improve funding for universities and benefit students - again ignored by the labour party

if in any doubt, google opponents of the graduate tax that labour suddenly now favour - after most of their front bench preferred to introduce tuition fees after an election campaign saying they wouldnt - opposition to it has been well established by some very reputable groups.

doesnt sound like the labour party are listening to anyone, they would prefer to run with the biggest public bandwagon.
the fact remains that regardless of which party forms a government, one way or another, students (as everyone else has to) will have to stump up more money to pay off past borrowing or the UK will go bust

Busby @ 7

"Perhaps the most shocking aspect of this decision is that the Welsh Assembly is going to pay the addition cost of any Welsh student attending an English University. If they can afford that, it is clear that there is no need to treble university fees for English students going to English universities."

The point is the WAG cannot afford it, without 25,000 engish students and 11,000 foreign students paying up to £9k each going to welsh unis to recoup the money, or making further cuts on the uni budgets since they set the budget in mid November, they have not protected Health spending either, the main point of contention is this being a political one, in that in Wales there are elections next May.

Can they sustain this support after that election, the policy is only funded for 18 months after its inception in 2012.

Meanwhile Welsh Primaries and Secondaries are underfunded by some £500 per pupil less than England by WAG and Wales has dropped further down the PISA rankings below average on every measure, the assembly's response to blame teachers!

9. At 6:41pm on 09 Dec 2010, virtualsilverlady wrote:
Well thank goodness that's over.

Yep. Last we've heard on that score.

#6 yeah after 13 years of education education education that failed to produce people that can do basic arithmetric, like most of the labour party and many at the 91Èȱ¬ too,

For Messrs Clegg, Cable and their fellow travellers there is nothing left for them politically now. Having destroyed any remaining political capital with the electorate in the single most treacherous betrayal of their pre-election pledges and promises, they have effectively committed electoral suicide? And all this before the cuts begin to bite, and a few hundred thousand people lose their jobs

More importantly, the Tories know this. In the eyes of the voters they have effectively painted themselves blue, and consequently lost their independent identity. So, from being a junior partner in government, they have now become the embarrassing kid on the block who whinges & whines, and constantly demands to be allowed to play with the big boys - but the big boys no longer need or want them.

What are the LibDems to do? Continue to play along on the understanding that they no longer have any influence over what Cameron & Co decide to do in future and disappear in a haze of blue, or stamp their feet and threaten to leave the coalition to show they have relevance. The former confirms their impotence and irrelevance, the latter that they are politically immature and incapable of holding high office - either way, the electorate will punish them.

My advice to Clegg and Co is to is to put their feet up on their respective ministerial desks and make the most of the privileges of office - whilst all the while cultivating contacts in big business in the hope of securing a lucrative private sector position starting in May 2015.

Personally, and in homage to "Citizen Smith", I hope the LibDem membership ensure their leadeship are "first against the wall".

I have just read the latest of Mr Cable's comments on the tuition fee measures - namely: "By no means all" students oppose the fee rises (he tells Channel 4 News).

So, Mr Cable, exactly which students are these? Do you have evidence to back your assertion? Or isn't it more likely that Mr Cameron and his fellow millionaire cabinet colleagues have canvassed their offspring, and been assured by their assorted Ruperts and Camillas that they have no problem with Mummy and Daddy paying higher fees.

Mr Cable has lost it big time with such an asinine remark. I'd pity him if he weren't the author of his own misfortune.

Cameron likes fees 'cause there are too many people going to university after Tony Blair's push to get everybody in (and off the unemployment rolls). Who will drive the trains and buses? Theology graduates? This bus is bound for glory..........

Clegg likes fees 'cause he is a closet conservative and his party only voted for no fees when they believed they would never have to deliver. Wake up and smell the coffee. But we can only afford the powdered stuff..

Saddest thing from my point of view is how the devolved assemblies can pretend to afford to fund their students fes except that the English taxpayer is underwriting it with the capitation allowances.

Time to rebuild Hadrian's Wall and dig out Offa's dyke?

"So, Mr Cable, exactly which students are these? Do you have evidence to back your assertion? Or isn't it more likely that Mr Cameron and his fellow millionaire cabinet colleagues have canvassed their offspring, and been assured by their assorted Ruperts and Camillas that they have no problem with Mummy and Daddy paying higher fees."

My daughter is studying for a science degree. She HATES that people are protesting and rioting at what is a massively generous system. She is more upset that her future taxes will be raided to pay the fees of stupid vanity degrees like "David Beckham studies" because the students that do those stupid courses will never earn enough to pay their own fees off.

Apparently all of her student friends are against the protesters too. OH and we are not talking about rich kids either, She is from a very working class background.

These proposed measures are socialist nector for working class and poorer people. It amounts to a completely free university education, with increased grants for the poor. They will not have to pay it back at all, unless they become rich!

I cannot for the life of me understand why socialists are protesting against forcing the rich to pay more and the poor nothing. Can anyone explain that one too me?

# 6 At 6:17pm on 09 Dec 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

"GOOD! The propsed scheme is very very generous to graduates and NO students at all will have to pay anything for their education".

Anyone who thinks trebelling the cost of university fees is very generous to students has clearly lost the plot!

Saying that students won't have to pay unless they earn a certain amount is not an argument to justify trebelling the fees. That line of argument says that it is a good idea to impose a very level of debt knowing there is no likelihood of the debt ever being repaid in many cases! What is the sense in that? The level of debt will accrue interest throughout the working life of the graduate and this could well act as a disincentive to earning more income or declaring that income because increased payments are like an additional tax on that income. The level of debt would therefore become a form of poverty trap that takes away all incentive to get a better paid job.

For other students the level of student debt will act as a great incentive to emigrate and avoid paying anything back at all.

purpleDogzzz wrote:

"I would LOVE for my mortgage to be on these same overly generous terms".

A graduate couple with a combined £90,000 student debt, when living expenses are taken into account for a 3 year degree course, and earning the same amount as you would not be able to get a mortgage on the same terms as you because they would also be paying the interest and capital on their £90,000 student loan. That would reduce the amount they could borrow very significantly indeed. I'm sure that graduates on the same income as you would therefore LOVE to be able a mortgage on the same generous terms as you.

I think that socialists are protesting because the tories have introduced a measure that is far more socialist than labour ever dared. Rich paying loads and poor paying nothing? Karl Marx eat your heart out!!!

It is jealousy, pure and simple.

As for Anarchists protesting because they want MORE government intervention? For real?

Anarchists, here is a clue:

Anarchy:
±Ê°ù´Ç²Ô³Ü²Ô³¦¾±²¹³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô:/ˈ²¹²ÔÉ™°ì¾±/
noun
1 a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems:he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy
2 absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
(Oxford Dictionary definition)

Where is the part about bigger government doing more and paying more??? I cannot find it.

So these Anarchists are not the brightest bulbs in the box are they?

#18 Two points.

Firstly, does anybody in their right mind support "David Beckham" studies? Going for a 50% uptake of further education for over 18's should carry the caveat that "studies in vagueness" do not count. The purpose of increased take-up of tertiary education is meant to repair decades of neglect in the field of national skills and boost the UK's ability to compete in the world economy - something that will benefit the entire population.

Secondly, can I point you to item 9 in the previous NR blog - /blogs/nickrobinson/2010/12/to_vote_is_to_c.html - which, I believe, amply sums up why this measure is a travesty. A marginal tax rate of 40% at an income level of 21k will deny many new graduates from buying their own home and starting a family - the choice will be either/or - unless your father is David Cameron, of course.

@ 19, there is so much wrong in what you wrote I do not know where to begin!!!

You clearly have not read the terms of the proposed system.

OK I'll try

--Saying that students won't have to pay unless they earn a certain amount is not an argument to justify trebelling the fees--

It is if we are talking about affordability. This new system will not leave ANYONE unable to afford to pay. And if these students are not prepared to invest in their own education from a guaranteed affordable repayment system, then why the hell should the taxpayer?

If the government was proposing the same system for business start-ups, I would be signing up straight away. Borrow 100K, but do not begin to repay until the business is making a substantial profit? How many businessmen would bite your arm off to grab a deal like that?

-- That line of argument says that it is a good idea to impose a very level of debt knowing there is no likelihood of the debt ever being repaid in many cases! What is the sense in that?--

Agreed. It should be the tax-payers that are rioting, not the students!

-- The level of debt will accrue interest throughout the working life of the graduate and this could well act as a disincentive to earning more income or declaring that income because increased payments are like an additional tax on that income. The level of debt would therefore become a form of poverty trap that takes away all incentive to get a better paid job.--

That is plain nonsense! You are suggesting that those who wish to better themselves through going to university, would be put off by becoming higher rate tax-payers and earning more money and being able to AFFORD to pay more?

-- A graduate couple with a combined £90,000 student debt, when living expenses are taken into account for a 3 year degree course, and earning the same amount as you--

Where did I say how much I earn? I didn't. Your whole argument is lost!

-- would not be able to get a mortgage on the same terms as you because they would also be paying the interest and capital on their £90,000 student loan.--

Not true, that would entirely depend on their earnings, which in this fictitious scenario, you have not stated. If they are both earning 20,900 PA then they would not be repaying ANYTHING of their loan on their combined income of 41,800. The student loan would NOT be considered a debt in the same way as any other debt when applying for a mortgage or other loan. That is according to the council for Mortgage lenders.

--That would reduce the amount they could borrow very significantly indeed.--

Not true as shown above. Additionally, if they are on an income above 21,000 then the repayment on the loan would be so low (starting at 70 quid per month). easily affordable. You have totally avoided the central and most important part of this whole package, the affordability of it. That is why you assumed my income without my having stated it, and you never mentioned the graduates income. If they had a combined debt of 90K and where finance students who become investment bankers and earned bonuses of 800K per year, then would you object to them having 90K debt?

Suppose they have a combined 90K debt and become nurses earning 19K, then they will not have to pay ANYTHING at all and their entire education would have been free for them!

This is a GREAT deal for graduates. Not such a good one for tax-payers.

I would happily take out a 24 million pound loan, if I did not have to begin to repay it until I was earning 21 million per year!!!

--I'm sure that graduates on the same income as you would therefore LOVE to be able a mortgage on the same generous terms as you--

You do not know what my income is. but here is a clue...If my mortgage was on the same terms as a student loan, then I would only be paying £70.00 per month in repayments instead of the hundreds and hundreds per month I am currently.

You clearly have no clue as to what you are writing about.

@21, Are you suggesting that someone on an income above 21,000 can not afford 70 pounds per month towards the cost of their own education?

If they are not prepared to pay that, then why should the taxpayer?

~ 18. At 8:34pm on 09 Dec 2010, purpleDogzzz wrote:

"My daughter is studying for a science degree. She HATES that people are protesting and rioting at what is a massively generous system. She is more upset that her future taxes will be raided to pay the fees of stupid vanity degrees like "David Beckham studies" because the students that do those stupid courses will never earn enough to pay their own fees off".

Here I agree with you and your daughter. It is a waste of taxpayers and student money to study for vanity degrees for which there are no jobs and no likelihood that the graduates concerned would ever earn enough to justify the costs of getting their degree. These wasteful degrees push up the student costs for everone.

It would be far better use of taxpayers money to end these degree courses and use the money saved to keep fees for worthwhile degrees at the current level of just over £3000 pa.

This was going to be the trickiest one for the lib dems but a majority of 21 is still comfortable. The most telling moment for me was after the vote Ed Miliband was asked if he would reduce tuition fees if they got in and his answer was, "we should not make promises we can't keep". He knows this was the only option other than drastically cutting university places and closing universities. The university bodies and the reputable universities agreed in principle that this was the only equitable solution to keep the universities well funded but not put students off doing a degree. We need to invest in technical colleges and FE colleges as well as universities.

purpleDogzzz @ 23, there is so much wrong in what you wrote that I hardly know where to begin!!!

You clearly did not have the faintest idea what I was getting at as you argued at cross purposes throughout.

You have no idea about debt and whether an 18 year old, barely an adult, is in a position to make a judgment on whether it makes sense to get a degree and £45,000 debt by the time they are 21 at the start of their career.

"If the government was proposing the same system for business start-ups, I would be signing up straight away. Borrow 100K, but do not begin to repay until the business is making a substantial profit? How many businessmen would bite your arm off to grab a deal like that?"

You are not comparing like with like! They are 18 year olds, not businessmen, who have probably not earned any more than they might earn working in a shop one day a week, if that, before they go to University!!! And yet you compare this to a business start up deal...

I wrote "A graduate couple with a combined £90,000 student debt, when living expenses are taken into account for a 3 year degree course, and earning the same amount as you"...

and you replied

"Where did I say how much I earn? I didn't. Your whole argument is lost!"

You entirely missed the point I was making! I was trying to compare like with like by assuming a graduate had the same income as you, whatever level that is!! How else could I compare their position to you to show that on any level of income that would support a mortgage, you would be better off than the graduate couple because you don't have to repay a student loan of £90,000?


I wrote "would not be able to get a mortgage on the same terms as you because they would also be paying the interest and capital on their £90,000 student loan".

You replied

"Not true, that would entirely depend on their earnings, which in this fictitious scenario, you have not stated. If they are both earning 20,900 PA then they would not be repaying ANYTHING of their loan on their combined income of 41,800. The student loan would NOT be considered a debt in the same way as any other debt when applying for a mortgage or other loan. That is according to the council for Mortgage lenders".

Now why should the Council of Mortgage lenders say that they won't consider outgoings on a student loan in considering a mortgage? That makes no sense because it is still a debt which is either accruing or being repaid. Either way the mortgage is a greater risk than if the applicant did not have a student debt.

And by the way, the level at which students will start to repay their loans does not constitute a level of income that will get them on the housing ladder where I live in London, even with two incomes. Above that level they might have a chance but the student loan repayment would make a considerable dent in their ability to do so. Starting a family would be out of the question.

You wrote
"Suppose they have a combined 90K debt and become nurses earning 19K, then they will not have to pay ANYTHING at all and their entire education would have been free for them!

This is a GREAT deal for graduates. Not such a good one for tax-payers".

Such a poor example! If we expect nurses to work for a low wage like £19,000 pa, we shouldn't charge them any student fees or wipe out the student debt after say 5 years working for the NHS. That would be a good deal for taxpayers as that would reward and encourage the best students to become nurses, something we all need.

PaulRM wrote #21:
"Secondly, can I point you to item 9 in the previous NR blog - /blogs/nickrobinson/2010/12/to_vote_is_to_c.html - which, I believe, amply sums up why this measure is a travesty. A marginal tax rate of 40% at an income level of 21k will deny many new graduates from buying their own home and starting a family - the choice will be either/or - unless your father is David Cameron, of course".

Sadly, your lack of understanding in #24 showed that you failed to grasp this point.

Yet another burning day in the name of a party emerging from the past already making history. There are different faces to today’s events which cannot completely be termed as unreasonable on the part of the government but what fired up the violence was the manner and pace it has been applied the policy, something which has become a trade mark of this government. Earlier the implementation of large scale immigration cap and now the sudden increase in student fees at the universities. But irrespective of all these reasoning’s and logic, the primary catalyst that flared up the students anger is the happy go lucky Libdems who have been out rightly breaking one promise after another, ones that they has made as signed pledges to make it into the government.
In my opinion the government needs to do slow down a bit and analyze the consequences of their actions on the nation in the long run, something any intelligent person usually does in a crisis situation