Today I'm angry about.....

[Hoboh]

We should close ALL THE FOOKIN' UNI's NOW!!! Vet every student before allowing them back in, anyone who can be recognised at these demo's should be expelled, flogging should be brought back and Police issued live amunition!!!!

These scruffy, stupid urchins have just cost the public purse millions of the cash they reckon they should have so sod them. bump up the fees to a more realistic £20 grand a year, at least the trash will end up doleing around whinging about their "degree"

Make the world a better place, shoot a student a day!!!

[BWFC_Insane]

Seeing as I didn't do a full time degree and probably paid in full for my course, they can charge you unwashed whatever they want, for me

However, I can see why we shouldn't

To tell folk now what it will cost them to do something seems eminently fair

Lets you make an informed choice

Fcuk me, its life, not a game

Why don't we ask folk for their credit cards when they dial 999. Or ask for up front money to send their kids to school.

Why should I pay for others kids schooling? Or other folk who use the police? Or for other people's medical treatment?

Someone wants to see a GP, thats £100. Least people know up front and can make an informed choice!

[thebish]

I thought they made promises based on them winning the election?

If I'm wrong, then I'll join you in being amazed that Politicians tell lies/change their minds

you're wrong. (not for the first time) I'm sure you'll get over it.

[bobo the clown]

this isn't 'increases across the board' - some people will be in a better place

On the second, let's try another tack

Why shouldn't the student contribute to the cost of their education?

Its a choice to go to Uni - nobody forces it on people

(I'm directly affected by this and despite being adversely affected - I know I will be, I always am (it's the downside to earning reasonably well and obeying the laws of the land) - I believe it to be only fair)

this, this ... a 1,000 times this.

The whole protest has been an exercise in deliberately not wishing to see the real picture.

There is no option of continuing as we were.
The Govt. who first introduced fees would have had to have increased them one way or another.
That Govt. introduced the Brown report, knowing that it would have a finding of this sort but also knowing they would be out of office by the time it was required to be introduced ... & now have the fckg temerity to challenge it.
If ther hadn't been the fckg ludicrous expansion of Universities so that every spare Kwik Save & Aldi is now claiming to produce 'graduates' then there wouldn't be this pressure on the proper funding of proper degrees at proper universities educating proper students to get proper qualifications which would propely aid them to get proper employment.

... & the violent element in the protests ARE the minority, but not the overwhelmingly small proportion being claimed. There is a largish number who are either actively partaking in this, or are giving sufficient to support to those who are. This is counter-productive to their aims and damges their support in the country as a whole. Which suits be fine, btw.

[superjohnmcginlay]

I thought they made promises based on them winning the election?

If I'm wrong, then I'll join you in being amazed that Politicians tell lies/change their minds



And when you've cleared that up, make a case for a bloke on minimum wage funding someone elses kids through Uni?

I'm all ears

Individual MPs signed pledges saying they as individuals would vote against any planned increases. Whether the Lib Dems 'won' or not. So be amazed. Though I apprecieate the sarcasm there-laden. You have to remember for many this is their first experience of being directly lied to. I imagine you were pretty pissed off the first time.

What they said as a party was that if elected they would phase them out altogether over six years. Admittedly this is like me saying if I were elected I'd make Cheryl Cole public property, but Clegg himself has admitted he regrets going back on it. So he thinks he has gone back on what he promised.
As for the second bit, well, that is of course how it works. I live in a very low crime rate area, why should I have to pay for policing? I've never met Doris the cancer patient, why should I have to pay for her cancer treatment?

Really? What sheltered lives you must have led.

[ratbert]

We should close ALL THE FOOKIN' UNI's NOW!!! Vet every student before allowing them back in, anyone who can be recognised at these demo's should be expelled, flogging should be brought back and Police issued live amunition!!!!

These scruffy, stupid urchins have just cost the public purse millions of the cash they reckon they should have so sod them. bump up the fees to a more realistic £20 grand a year, at least the trash will end up doleing around whinging about their "degree"

Make the world a better place, shoot a student a day!!!

This debate was going so well.

[BWFC_Insane]

I like the way that the very same folk who would scream and shout blue murder if a Labour promise was broken or slightly altered in any way are now using the "well they all do it don't they" defence for the current government!

[superjohnmcginlay]

What surprised me is my local (Tory) MP voted against. But he used to be a lib dem. Calender presenting bastard.

[ratbert]

There are two things at work here. One is the Lib Dems saying no to tuition fees - through their leader turned deputy PM - then welshing on those words, making them look like typical politicians who'd say anything to get elected then reveal what they really think. In truth, its more about the reality of government being a vastly different prospect to the comfort of opposition.

Then there is the whole principle of student funding, which seems to have no obvious answer, which is why people are tied in knots about it.

Personally I'd prefer a graduate tax that comes in at 25 and progressively rises in line, presumably, with career progress. Debt isn't the answer. Loans have no guaranteed return to the universities; tax income can at least be ring fenced.

I had to run up debt to put myself through uni a second time, and its not a nice experience, but I'm glad I did it. Undergraduates have it much easier than postgrads - PhD funding is like finding gold plated turds.

[Worthy4England]

I think it's hilarious that the PM is asking for the perps to feel the full force of the law...

And Ken Clarke's talking about much softer sentences, avoiding prision where possible.

I do like the wonderful counterpoint of people having had the benefit of state funded education, now moaning about the fact that we provide it.

"Ahh but I (personally) didn't go to University"...

Well you could have...

[William the White]

this isn't 'increases across the board' - some people will be in a better place

On the second, let's try another tack

Why shouldn't the student contribute to the cost of their education?

Its a choice to go to Uni - nobody forces it on people

(I'm directly affected by this and despite being adversely affected - I know I will be, I always am (it's the downside to earning reasonably well and obeying the laws of the land) - I believe it to be only fair)

this, this ... a 1,000 times this.

The whole protest has been an exercise in deliberately not wishing to see the real picture.

There is no option of continuing as we were.
The Govt. who first introduced fees would have had to have increased them one way or another.
That Govt. introduced the Brown report, knowing that it would have a finding of this sort but also knowing they would be out of office by the time it was required to be introduced ... & now have the fckg temerity to challenge it.
If ther hadn't been the fckg ludicrous expansion of Universities so that every spare Kwik Save & Aldi is now claiming to produce 'graduates' then there wouldn't be this pressure on the proper funding of proper degrees at proper universities educating proper students to get proper qualifications which would propely aid them to get proper employment.

... & the violent element in the protests ARE the minority, but not the overwhelmingly small proportion being claimed. There is a largish number who are either actively partaking in this, or are giving sufficient to support to those who are. This is counter-productive to their aims and damges their support in the country as a whole. Which suits be fine, btw.

The volcanic clown in eruption once more.

[Lord Kangana]

John Sergeant (a man I have time for) said on question time that from an economic point of view we are in no worse a position than the early eighties, when we didn't scrap the idea of free (or virtually free) education for all.

The implication being that this was politically rather than economically motivated action.

I shall have to brush up on my early eighties economics to find out if this has substance before I either endorse or criticise it.

[thebish]

Aye, but I bet you enjoyed it.

I'm holding my judgement for when the first student that leaves university with his huge student/government loans enters a bank asking for a mortgage/loan/overdraft/whatever.

The banking sector has "promised" Vince Cable that they will not view them as personal debt.

I reckon they're a bunch of lying shithouses.

But that shouldn't prejudice their case. So back to this thread in 2015 then.

hmmm... yesterday the BBC got hold of a copy of this letter Vince was bragging about from the banks - and (surprise, surprise) the bits he didn't read out poured quite a bit of cold water on his promise (LOL!) that people will not be denied mortgages by banks if tyhey have £40,000 of student debt...

[thebish]

I thought they made promises based on them winning the election?

That's how I see it as well.

well, you're wrong too then.

[BWFC_Insane]

John Sergeant (a man I have time for) said on question time that from an economic point of view we are in no worse a position than the early eighties, when we didn't scrap the idea of free (or virtually free) education for all.

The implication being that this was politically rather than economically motivated action.

I shall have to brush up on my early eighties economics to find out if this has substance before I either endorse or criticise it.

Of course its politically motivated LK.

The Tories have been looking for an excuse to cull the public sector, to hammer the poor and to create a two tiered educational system.

They are now doing all this under the name of "necessary cuts".

Thankfully the public are not falling for it, I'll give this government 2 years before they are finished for good!

[thebish]

Individual MPs signed pledges saying they as individuals would vote against any planned increases. Whether the Lib Dems 'won' or not.

As for the second bit, well, that is of course how it works. I live in a very low crime rate area, why should I have to pay for policing? I've never met Doris the cancer patient, why should I have to pay for her cancer treatment?

On the first point, this isn't 'increases across the board' - some people will be in a better place

wrong again. you're making a habit of this.

[Worthy4England]

I thought they made promises based on them winning the election?

That's how I see it as well.

well, you're wrong too then.

Indeed. Surely a manifesto promise still stands as a promise, regardless of whether you're in power, sharing power or in opposition. Manifesto - from the Latin, meaning clear or conspicuous.

They said they would oppose rises in tuition fees. They could still have done so, regardless of whether they are a minority party in a coalition. It might have brought the coalition down, so they chose to save their own skins instead of following their guiding principles.

That makes them lying bastards - maybe no different than any other lying bastards, but given some people would have levelled that criticism at the previous government, it's a little difficult to defend it now.

[superjohnmcginlay]

I reckon the tories are pissing themselves here. Pushing through a policy and watching the lib dems take all the shit. Good work.

[thebish]

I thought they made promises based on them winning the election?

That's how I see it as well.

well, you're wrong too then.

Indeed. Surely a manifesto promise still stands as a promise, regardless of whether you're in power, sharing power or in opposition. Manifesto - from the Latin, meaning clear or conspicuous.

They said they would oppose rises in tuition fees. They could still have done so, regardless of whether they are a minority party in a coalition. It might have brought the coalition down, so they chose to save their own skins instead of following their guiding principles.

That makes them lying bastards - maybe no different than any other lying bastards, but given some people would have levelled that criticism at the previous government, it's a little difficult to defend it now.

not only was there the manifesto promise - couched in "we" terms - "we" being the liberal democrats, but there was alos the individual pledges that they all signed.

if you were really crafty you might argue rather tortuously that the promise in the manifesto was based on the unwritten idea that the manifesto was a document predicated on the assumption of a Lib Dem government..

BUT

that can not be said of the individual pledges - they were "I" statements - and there was no smallprint - and they were EXPLICITLY NOT predicated on the assumption of a libdem government - in fact - the wording of the individual pledges suggested NOT being in power and opposing it...

here's a picture of one:



That is clear and unequivocal - and ALL prospective LibDem MPs signed it - most of them very publically.

so - CAPS and Keveh... manifestly NOT based on them winning the election - I am afraid you have swallowed some of the libdem post-election spin...

[TANGODANCER]

Well, on a positive note it's good to see we already have potential pyro-technics experts, demolition men, a prospective fireman and a candidate for Cirque Soliel amongst our emerging graduates.