Students Rioting in London.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think they are using it too reduce the size of the state dramatically. I not sure if that's what people want but it wasn't a choice presented. People voted to do what was needed, not to cut where we don't absolutely need too.

Trouble is the jury's out on what needs to be done and one group of 'experts' contradicts another.

Originally Posted by Damien

There was a chant from the protesters at the bottom of the tower directed at those who had broken in and hit the roof to tell them not to throw stuff. Although they used rather more colourful language, hence why I won't link to it. The Guardian's Live blog of the event yesterday has it embedded though.

I'm very glad to hear that at least but I hope that if the same happens next time the law abiding protesters will waste no time letting these anarchists know their presence isn't welcomed and that destroying property and intimidating innocent people isn't acceptable.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Damien

People voted to do what was needed, not to cut where we don't absolutely need too.

Hrm nope I wanted to vote for a wholesale reduction in the size of the state, substantial dispersement of powers from central government towards locally elected representatives, accountability throughout with primaries, recall mechanisms and direct democracy with decisions being taken as closely as possible to those they affect and a repatriation of powers from Brussels amongst other things.

Unfortunately none of the political parties have the testicular fortitude for that so I voted for Vince Cable.

---------- Post added at 17:39 ---------- Previous post was at 17:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Anyhow, you missed the point in that in this country, the tax burden is already near insurmountable and to add on £9K debt on top is too much.
This country needs to invest in education, and if we don't we'll continue to fall further behind.

Interesting. Complaining about taxes in the adjacent paragraph to advocating investment in education which would require tax increases.

---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Sparkle

On the contrary, its that sort of twisting of words that does yourself and this forum no favours. I was referring to the concept of free education in this country. The fact that the money come from the taxpayer (who incidentally benefits from education) is the way it ought to be, in my opinion.

We get taxed on our wages, the money we have left then gets taxed again at every avenue. The government, as with any government, will grow to fill the space allocated. Because we are quite happy to simply just bend over and ask for seconds, the government has become a swollen behemoth that knows no bounds.

Interesting. Strongly advocating smaller state but strongly advocating investment in discretionary education.

So if we have a smaller state wouldn't that mean that something would have to fill the gap? Such as people taking responsibility for providing the services that the government did previously perhaps. I have to admit that reducing government support for degrees which are considered not to be especially 'beneficial' to the 'taxpayer' strikes me as a step to reduce the size of government.

It's a bizarre argument. The tax payer should pay because they benefit. Some don't - why should they pay for people to take pointless degrees?

I would be just fine for support for higher education to return to its' earlier levels on five conditions.

1) The support is only applied to courses which are of value to the job market or projected skills needs. Random crap Humanities degrees aren't going to be of particular benefit in filling skills shortages, and indeed the fact that there are such skills shortages within science, maths, engineering, etc, despite record numbers of graduates is an horrific indictment of how little value there is in many of these courses.
2) The support is means tested. If mummy and daddy can pay your fees then pay your fees they will.
3) The degrees provided are of a high quality, all students required to be able to do things like write the word 'fees' without an apostrophe between the final 'e' and the 's'.
4) Bursaries for those who are intelligent enough to do the business but couldn't afford to attend without the support, everyone else can take a maintenance loan or draw on the bank of parents.
5) You drop out without good reason you become liable to repay all governmental support unless you return to study no later the 2 academic years time. The government is investing in your future which will benefit you, not investing for you to urinate it up the wall or smoke it out, as incidentally I did.

Incidentally I went to university for a year. The course was pointless, low quality crap that I had learned during first year of A Levels in the subject and I achieved good results despite doing as little work as possible before dropping out due to being bored, unrewarded, and having had enough of wasting time that could be spent making money and gaining experience dealing with lecturers who were obviously there because they couldn't hack actually working in IT. Still it was probably better than some now where students need remedial English and numeracy training due to the joke that is gaining admission to university.

[Chrysalis]

So this coalution already has its 1st riot under its belt.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

So this coalution already has its 1st riot under its belt.

Better confronting the possibility of that than doing the popular thing all the time. Shows courage and conviction if nothing else.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

So this coalution already has its 1st riot under its belt.

probably because students where naive enough to believe in politicians election promises and have had their first taste of betrayal .

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think the NUS conducted themselves appropriately throughout this entire protest. They worked well the the police, they deplored the violence in strong terms, and the actual march they organised was peaceful and well managed.

There is a good video of some students outside the Tory HQ chanting against those who were throwing things from the roof.

The reporting of the protest this morning has been keen to differentiate between the students and those who attached themselves in the march in order to cause disruption. A former senior member of the flying squad said the same on the radio this morning, that the NUS would never have been the problem but rather a professional group of troublemakers who use all marches to cause trouble.

As such I don't think sympathy will evaporate. As I mentioned previously a lot of people will either have been a student or be closely related to someone who was/is/will be a student. It's too big a demographic to effectively tar them all with the same brush, that really only works when people have had little exposure to the group in question.

That's true for most students involved but it wasn't entirely an equal split between the peaceful student protesters and the militant professional May Day protesters who hijacked the event.

The woman I alluded to before (couldn't post the link as I was on my phone) was Clare Solomon, president of the University of London Student Union. And there's this:

The document was signed by John Wadsworth, Goldsmiths lecturers' union president and a senior lecturer in education, and Des Freedman, a lecturer in communications and cultural studies.

It said: “The real violence in this situation relates not to a smashed window but to the destructive impact of the cuts and privatisation that will follow if tuition fees are increased and massive reductions in HE funding are implemented.”

We're talking a small minority but it's squeaky wheels that get the grease.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Anyhow, you missed the point in that in this country, the tax burden is already near insurmountable and to add on £9K debt on top is too much.

£9k is too much? You can't get a Ford Fiesta for that. So a decent education seems pretty good value.

A £9k debt is not much to ask when most people will earn at least £10k a year more year-on-year with a job as a result of having a degree and if they don't, they don't pay it back. Its a gamble you can't lose.

People these days want everything for nothing. I left with near-enough £9k and I don't think that was unreasonable.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Re. hours per week:

My Degree (1996-1999) was in Molecular & Cellular Biology, so comes under the "STEM" grouping which will still receive funding under the new proposals.

I worked during the holidays, but not during term times. I often had more lectures in one day than many of my friends had in one week. Full days of lectures/labs, along with coursework, essays, practical write-ups, etc. to be done outside of that. No time for a job during term.

Originally Posted by Damien

The previous government was in favour of a graduate tax. I am too. Rather than this massive increase in students fees, and they want to charge increased interest on these massive loans. This seriously screws over people that go on to pass the £21,000 threshold but not exceed £35,000 in their careers. They end up paying more than people who go on to earn £100k + as they will pay it back in no time and pay less interest.

Was Labour under Brown in favour of a graduate tax?

I know that during the leadership contest, well after the election, both Ed Miliband & Ed Balls said that they were in favour of a graduate tax, but I think the official position of the previous Government was "we're going to wait & see what the Browne Review says".

Re. the interest:

Everything I have read suggests that interest only goes up as earnings go up, & that the whole idea is to make it "fair", so that those graduates who have higher salaries pay a higher amount of interest. Also, I believe the idea is to impose some sort of "penalty" to prevent what you fear regarding very high earners paying less due to paying their loans off early.

EDIT: Here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11677862 I've read more on it elsewhere too but can't find it at the moment.

[vanman]

Nick Clegg has admitted he "should have been more careful" about signing the pre-election pledge to oppose any increase in tuition fees.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11732787

Many of the party's MPs, including Mr Clegg, signed a National Union of Students pledge not to vote for higher fees if re-elected in May.

That was before reality bit.....

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That was before reality bit.....

The trouble we have (I think I've said it already) is that everything they do can, does and will be blamed on the excuse that they didn't know it was this bad till they looked at the books that Labour left.

if the accounts weren't as bad as they are, we'd happily provide this and that to the poor, the needy, the dying. but as we said. Labour left the books in a right mess.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by punky

A £9k debt is not much to ask when most people will earn at least £10k a year more year-on-year with a job as a result of having a degree and if they don't, they don't pay it back. Its a gamble you can't lose.

Hmm seem to remember Willetts saying on average graduates earn £100k more throughout their entire careers so it's more like £2k a year before you take the new fees and their interest rates into account. Willetts was also actually using this in justification for raising the fees IIRC! £23k worth of student debt on average to earn £100k more over a lifetime will put an awful lot of people of attending.

---------- Post added at 23:15 ---------- Previous post was at 23:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

When you think some of these students will go on to be Doctors and Lawyers, but they will bein debt for the rest of there lives, due to to the increase in fee's.

Medical students are exempt from the increases IIRC. As for lawyers meh...

This is an interesting article

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/skills-...003966.article

I can remember being offered a job back in the 70's where attending a 'day release' course at the local college was a condition of employment - this support was available for apprentices to progress to technician grades as well as (up to) masters degree level courses for other staff wanting to gain professional qualifications.

In my opinion, if employers want qualified staff, this arrangement 'seemed' to fulfil the need better than the current system - and perhaps a compromise on the employees expectation of their salary while training might be a more palatable concept than running up an huge debt at university with an uncertain prospect of a job at the end?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Gary L

The trouble we have (I think I've said it already) is that everything they do can, does and will be blamed on the excuse that they didn't know it was this bad till they looked at the books that Labour left.

if the accounts weren't as bad as they are, we'd happily provide this and that to the poor, the needy, the dying. but as we said. Labour left the books in a right mess.

on the other hand if the books were that bad we would be seeing more tax rises and nhs cuts. People here dont know what broke is like, think back to the rationing following WW2.

This government would do what they doing now regardless of conditions, but the fact they came in during a recession made it much easier for them.

[vanman]

thats a fact
dated 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7176032.stm
borrowed link from HUGH
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35121157-post251.html

[Ed2020]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Wish I could find the picture of a home made banner expressing disgust at 'tuition fee's' - note the apostrophe.

BBC news report.

Where the person who wrote that sign needs to go to remedy their English, primary school, doesn't charge tuition fees.

From: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35121064-post248.html

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

... and the economy continues and accelerates its' growth...