Afternoon:
15°c
Today, the protesters will be out again on the streets of London, marching against this Coalition's plans for higher education.
Banners will be waved, slogans chanted, placards hoisted.
Of course these people have a right to protest. But I also believe they have a responsibility to know the full facts about what they're objecting to — and judging by the fury that's been unleashed, there are a lot of misconceptions flying around.
Here I want to set out the three essential things these protesters need to know about our plans for university funding.
The first thing they need to understand is that given the state of our public finances, changes to higher education funding are unavoidable.
Unlike our predecessors we won't patronise the public by pretending there's a bottomless pit of money we can dig into. There isn't, and that means difficult choices need to be made.
The public subsidy for higher education is massive — this year the Government will spend around £5 billion on teaching costs in English higher education alone — and in the context of spending restraint it cannot be exempted from cuts.
A lot has been said in recent weeks about what is in the interests of students, but this government is also responsible for the interests of taxpayers — and at a time of real financial hardship, a time when we have no choice but to make cuts across public spending, I don't believe it is right that we ask those on low incomes to pay taxes to prop up an unaffordable university funding system that they are not benefiting from directly.
The second thing protesters should know is that these reforms are vital to maintaining a world-class higher education system in this country. A lot of the banners waved in Whitehall proclaim the importance of education, both to our economy and as an end in itself. I'm in whole-hearted agreement with them — but it serves no one to have underfunded universities with fraying resources and fading reputations. It damages our economy and it damages the prospects of students.
These reforms are going to drive up the quality of higher education, because when more funding flows directly from the student rather than from government, universities will be pressured to up their game in order to attract more students — improving teaching quality, offering real value for money and offering better student support.
The third and most important thing the protesters need to understand is that these plans are fair.
No one — I repeat, no one — will have to pay a penny of their loan back until they can afford to do so.
Today graduates start contributing when they're earning £15,000. Under our scheme, payments don't even start until earnings reach £21,000 a year.
In fact, many of the lowest-income graduates will repay less than they do under the current system.
The effect of the higher earning threshold is that all who are repaying will pay back less each month than they do now. And, in the end, the highest earners will pay back the most.
I believe this is fair and right. It is fair that there is a link between the cost of a degree and the financial advantages it has brought. It is right that a high-earning executive should pay more than a teacher. Those who benefit will pay and those who benefit the most will pay the most.
And there's another reason why our plans are fair. For the first time since the last government introduced tuition fees, part-time students who are studying for at least a third of their time will — subject to the usual conditions — be entitled to a loan for their tuition costs, and they will no longer be forced to pay upfront costs.
This is a massive blow in favour of fairness because part-time students are generally older and less well-off. They might be working to support themselves through university, or looking after children. These plans will mean that, like anyone else going to university, they get the burden of upfront costs taken off their shoulders — and that way no one will be locked out of the opportunity university brings.
And this Coalition understands that fairness is not just about fees. Inequality in education is entrenched way before people start secondary school, let alone pick up a university prospectus. That's why we've brought in a pupil premium, so that the best schools are incentivised to offer places to the most disadvantaged children. And it's why we are forcing universities to do more outreach work.
Under these new plans, any institution seeking to charge more than £6,000 a year — up to the proposed £9,000 limit — will face stringent requirements to widen access to more disadvantaged students. They are going to have to take active steps to open their doors to the many, not just the few — and if they don't, there will be real financial sanctions.
So this is a solution that is fair on the taxpayer in a time of financial anxiety. It's fair on the student, who will get better teaching. And it's fair on the graduate, who will pay when they can afford it.
Our Coalition partners have had a lot of stick for supporting this policy but their opponents should understand this: responsible politics is not about peddling fantasy policies without looking at the price tag and pleasing any crowd you're playing to. It means making hard decisions in the national interest, in line with your beliefs and in light of the finances you've been left with.
With reform of higher education, that is exactly what this Government is doing.
Reader views (70)
There is one very good side effect to an increase in tuition cost: fewer people will go to college. Let's face it, there are so many people who go to college that never needed to, it is ridiculous and a total waste of space and resources. Women with 4 year liberal arts degrees are going on to become secretaries and librarians, jobs that used to be filled by entry level applicants with no need for a degree. Store managers used to be people promoted from within, with decades of low-level experience. Now, store managers have to have an MBA degree, and get hired with virtually no work experience at all!
College is not helping poorer or lower class people. It is creating a system in which standards have become so high that people who never did or never wanted to go to college simply can't make it. For the vast majority of graduates, it is a worthless piece of paper that does nothing more than verify that they wasted 4 years of their adult lives.
- Anna Hall, Seminole, FL, 27/05/2011 17:28
Report abuse
@ Lauran comment. If universities in USA and australia are charging £10,000, you should also not forget the minimum wage that they have and inflation of that country too, not just the amount that you pay as it is different in each and every single country. I can here say universities in China cost £1000, you will be like wooww!! but look at the money that workers earn in china, not just the figure of £1000 on its own.
And for your comment on partying. Its not all the students who party like mad. Even if they do, they do it from their own pocket why you bother so much? If you can't live with that fact then tough luck go snatch someone out there.
- John, Leicester, 03/03/2011 21:51
Report abuse
We are incredibly lucky in this country to have this system because education IS available to EVERYBODY! Making graduates pay back their tuition fees once earning IS fair. Don't forget that in many other countries like the US and Australia tuition fees can cost more than £10,000 and they must pay up front... that discourages poorer people from getting an education!
There are so many universities in this country and such a high demand for places, it is completely unsustainable to continue. Besides university education is not the be all and end all, there are so many other opportunities for employment.
I hope that this rise in fees will force students to consider whether they are really passionate about their subject, university should be about academia, not partying.
- Lauren, Surrey, UK, 10/12/2010 10:04
Report abuse
This debate reminds me of the now infamous quote by Judge Sturgess:-
"Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz hotel."
Thanks to the purportedly 'altruistic' and pragmatic reform of the current system by the 'Lib-Con' coalition, 'Justice' has now synonymous with 'education' in this case.
- Daniel O'Keeffe, East Ham, England., 08/12/2010 16:27
Report abuse
This debate reminds me of the now infamous quote by Judge Sturgess:-
"Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz hotel."
Thanks to the purportedly 'altruistic' and pragmatic reform of the current system by the 'Lib-Con' coalition, 'Justice' has now synonymous with 'education' in this case.
- Daniel O'Keeffe, East Ham, England., 08/12/2010 16:25
Report abuse
Before making up your mind about fees, people should look at calculations for new and old systems side by side. The differences seem more striking even than Cameron suggests, and there is no doubt that if the proposed changes were the other way round (back to the current scheme) there would be an absolute outcry from students and those trying to recruit promising students from less well off families. A critical point though, as some have suggested, is that the government must commit to raise the repayment threshold in line with inflation.
- Tony Medwin, London, 03/12/2010 16:48
Report abuse
People saying that teachers will pay more than higher earners due to interest charged should seriously work things out before misleading people. As only 9% of your salary over 22k is taken, and the debt is written off after 30 years, someone on a teachers wage will pay far less than the total debt (just calculate it!). To most people this will simply be a small tax you pay for 30 years. You will be paying far less than the rich who pay it off entirely, with interest, and with penalty fees for paying it off early! Also this debt does NOT show up on credit references and so will not burden people in any way!
- T, Cambridge, 02/12/2010 16:16
Report abuse
The balance between business and public will always be biased under any government towards business. The problem is under this government the balance is even more stark and the fact is, the public don't like it. While business avoids tax, we are asked to suffer more. Undermining students is just another blanket reaction from a government that is far removed from the society the public wants. They work for us, not the other way around.
- Gary, Essex, 02/12/2010 14:32
Report abuse
We KNOW all of this already, and its exactly why we're protesting. Please don't try and say that all placard holders are naive and trivial. Most of us understand quite well the ins and outs of the proposals, and guess what... we're still protesting.
- Mary, Leeds, 02/12/2010 14:25
Report abuse
Does anyone else think it's rather fun that in the photo the ES has chosen to illustrate this boring piece of propaganda with, if you look carefully, the central poster being touted is simply one of Dave's face with WANK*R emblazened across it. hahaha. good choice
- E, LDN, 02/12/2010 11:49
Report abuse
Oh, Tory spin! Don't you just love it?
A teacher earning 20-30k will take YEARS longer to pay back their student loan compared to a higher earning graduate. Thanks to the Condem government increasing the interest rates, this means that they will end up paying back more. So it's hardly a fair system -- the poorer graduate will pay more in the long run.
And education does benefit society. It's been proven that education correlates with a country's GDP, and also lowers crime rates. These are beneficial to everyone -- to society as a whole. Who do you think comes up with new cancer treatments, hmm? Brickies? Rich Eton boys? Try science graduates.
I don't know why people are complaining about having to pay for other people's education. I have to pay for a lot of things I don't like through my taxes, a prime example being the Trident replacement.
- AC, London, 02/12/2010 08:58
Report abuse
I am a part time student in full time employment. If my course fees increase to save the tax payers money, will the tax I pay in PAYE decrease inline. I doubt it. With my "I doubt it" argument tax payers will not be better off.
Potential students will be put off university because they will not want to start their working life with huge debts regardless of when they have to pay them back. With a current shortage of nurses and teachers and my predicted reduction in numbers of students, how do you intend to fill the voids of lack of staff at hospitals and schools (your offers of £ 600.00 to me every few months to become a teacher, this demonstrates your desperateness).
The reason I didn't enter full time university courses was because of the fright of a huge debt at the end of it.
Education should be funded by raising the retirement age. I have no intentions ever to retire.
Education should be available to everyone especially if the government are demanding better qualified people for various roles in society.
The desire for a degree has been driven by government not necessarily by students wantign a whale of a time.
I will be joining the student protests with full awareness of your proposed policy so please do not undermine me.
As for the Lib Dems, they begged for students to vote LibDem in the pre election campaign. Where is the democracy. A vote for a lie is not worth it.
- Paul Bibby, Manchester England, 01/12/2010 23:42
Report abuse
If students want to go to university then they can jolly well pay for it themselves. It's simply not fair to make taxpayers pay for students to go to university.
What is the big fuss about anyway? since they won't have to start paying the money back until they start earning 21k a year?
The government is right on this and doing a good job cleaning up the mess.
- Mark, Porstmouth UK, 01/12/2010 23:36
Report abuse
The point is we don't want to become America Dave.
If education is allowed to become a marketplace people will have to choose between an expensive degree or a s**t degree. Who will suffer most from this i wonder?
And it is so unfairly obvious who the victims of these cuts are, poor families who now won't send their children into higher education,
but it's the rich middle classes (and above) who abused the university system in the first place; Joining a degree just for the 'fun' of university life, failing them but being financialy secure enough to start another! I SEE IT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME!
Why has nothing been done about the excesses of the banking sector? The only perople who deserve to pay for this recession!
Lastly, how are students not taxpayers? How dare you drive a wedge between students and non students, we all do and will pay tax, and we are out in force to say we do not want a feudal system, we want our money spent on an education system based on merit.
- Matt Hall, Oxford/London UK, 01/12/2010 13:58
Report abuse
Couldn't finish this one yesterday. The reference to taxpayers interests, the reason for the tuition fees, this was not clear, as I thought students were also potential taxpayers over the time of this government and their decisions. Understand the separate issue students and others may have over voting for LDs in the first place re. tuition fees.
- M, London, 01/12/2010 12:57
Report abuse
Welcome to the Coalition - the Tories backed up by the cowardly and unprincipled LibDems, who really are the most disgusting bunch of political opportunists that this country has ever seen.
- Carl, London, 01/12/2010 09:23
Report abuse
My children both went to University and paid tuition fees of £1,000 per year. They came out with good degrees and both have good jobs. They also came out with a maxed out credit card, a maxed out student overdraft, and a debt the size of a small mortgage. That was despite both having worked part-time throughout their degree courses and having enjoyed good support from my wife and I. Why are we starting off our young people with huge debts around their necks?
Student loans are not interest-free. They accumulate interest at the prevailing rate of inflation. Although a student may not start paying-off debt until a certain level of income is reached, it certainly increases in value and the 'interest' rolls up to increase the debt. My son is now 31 and is still paying off his loan - and trying to pay the mortgage on his first home.No wonder he can't afford to start a family. Meanwhile the feckless of his generation will be grandparents by the time he can afford to contemplate parenthood.
Rant over - for now!
- Ken, Worcestershire, 01/12/2010 09:07
Report abuse
Lewis,
'Private' money does not really exist as it is all within a system of global exchange. The real issue about bankers bonuses is that the banks actually lend money at interest to the governments, we pay our taxes and that has to be spent on repayments. The IMF and World bank work on this basis and guess what, one of the conditionalities of those loans is to pull back all public services. Education is the first in a long list of what will be hit in the end.
- Daniel, London, 01/12/2010 08:35
Report abuse
Why couldn't the government have make their cut backs elsewhere instead of picking on the vulnerable~the good in our society? It baffles me when I read the estimated cost for a UK prison place is usually quoted at something like £37,500 per inmate per year with an estimation of around 80,000 inmates, thats quite a few £££££! I guess Education cuts won't affect those in prison though, they'll still get that free along with everything else.
There's also the Cost of keeping failed asylum seekers which i have read has soared from £4m to £73m in just 4 years, well thats not surprising when some are living on benefits and being housed in 1.8 million pound properties at a mere cost of £83,000 a year to the tax payer. So once again its NOT suprising to read (according to Whitehall figures) that MORE than £230million of taxpayers’ money is spent every year on housing asylum seekers.
In 2008 More than £2.3billion was spent on refurbishing the Ministry of Defence's Whitehall headquarters~civil servants living it up in restaurants and hotels on taxpayers' money.
So just HOW MUCH money will the government be saving by cutting EMA I ask my self???
So as Mr Cameron said, he doesn't patronise the public but states 'before protesting students need to get their facts straight.. The first thing they need to understand is that given the state of our public finances, changes to higher education funding are unavoidable'
hmmm.. and I wonder why that is?!
- maria,, newton abbot, devon, 01/12/2010 02:32
Report abuse
Surely Graduates benefit EVERY taxpayer in that they bring further wealth, culture and innovation into the country? I'd be quite happy to pay higher taxes (when it came to it, as I am currently a student myself) for another person's child to go to University because it would in help EVERYONE.
You talk of a Big Society, Mr Cameron; well surely everyone contributing to someone who wants an Education is precisely that??
Not only does it benefit the Community but it does exactly the thing you claim to be doing by raising the tuition fees: make Higher Education equally available to all; poor or rich. But no, I'm sure you'd never consider such a thing because all you care about is keeping us poor, unhappy and powerless as individuals, God forbid politics and good will coming together!
With the prostect of living as a young person in the sort of Society I see around me today, I'm left depressed and pessimistic about my future. If it doesn't change I may well take my debt and my skills elswhere, and I hope many others do so.
So thank you for that, Prime Minister.
- Lily, London, 30/11/2010 23:40
Report abuse
In public expenditure terms, the UK currently spends just 0.7 per cent of its GDP on higher education, a lower level than France (1.2 per cent), Germany (0.9 per cent), Canada (1.5 per cent), Poland (0.9 per cent) and Sweden (1.4 per cent). Even the United States, where students make a considerable private contribution, spends 1 per cent of its GDP on higher education - 0.3 per cent more than the UK does.The coalition's decision to triple tuition fees was a political choice, not an economic necessity.
- danny, oxford, uk, 30/11/2010 23:11
Report abuse
£21k in 2016 will be around £17k at todays prices, also the debt will be THREE TIMES THE SIZE.
Great deal Dave.
Students will leave Uni with debts of between £50 and £60k depending on length of course when maintenance costs are taken into account. What couple will be able to afford a mortgage or a family when saddled with a combined debts of £100k plus when starting out?
This is truly a plan cooked up by a childless millionaire corporate vandal, Lord Browne, and endorsed by a cabinet of millionaires.
It is a con to cut £4.7bn from university funding at a stroke and make the next generation of students carry the can.
Shame on you David Cameron, this is as dishonest as it is unfair.
- Danny, Oxford, 30/11/2010 22:58
Report abuse
Who is he trying to kid? Cameron is self delusional at best, or an outright liar. Please explain what the monetary value of 21,000 GBP will be once the graduates who will start under this fee-scheme will have found a job, in 2016 or further.
Answer: equal to or less than nowadays' 15,000 GBP.
And there is another point. This and future generations of students do not want to bear on their shoulders the weight of such a monumental debt (even before they have started working) to pay off or bail out the banks, because this is ultimately what happens.
And to accuse them of exploiting taxpayers' money to get a degree in this highly competitive society, is outright cowardly and vile.
- Luca, London, England, 30/11/2010 21:57
Report abuse
'Any institution seeking to charge more than £6,000 a year — up to the proposed £9,000 limit — will face stringent requirements to widen access to more disadvantaged students... And if they don't, there will be real financial sanctions.'
The problem is, nobody believes you.
- Tom Andrew, Edinburgh, 30/11/2010 21:07
Report abuse
Free education is a principle that
must be respected by any Government that supports its peoples. How is it "fair" David to cut education funding whilst maintaining a very low corporate tax rate? How is it fair that students, pensioners, disabled people have to buckle up whilst your "efficiency adviser" Philip Green gets away with NOT paying 285 million Pounds in tax? Where are all the facts David? And who's interests are you protecting by applying the commodity logic of the market to higher education?
- Daniella,, London, UK, 30/11/2010 20:22
Report abuse
I'm astonished when I hear people criticise the students over the riots.
Cameron 'protests' about them, but todays kids who have to pay for his concern for "national interest". And they are now being radicalised by the lies made by politicians. Cameron, writing today in the Standard is calculatedly naive: he knows that the protests cover far more than just the fee's. His only interest is in his coalition partner, Clegg, who has systematically betrayed an entire generation. For the damage it will do to faith in politics and politicians, this is worse than the the expenses scandal in every way!
- Andrew Daws, London, 30/11/2010 19:28
Report abuse
'Tis curious how the bleating, whining 'Soap Dodgers' (Students) have conveniently 'selective memories' when it comes to Student Fees...!!
Who was it who reneged on Manifesto 'promises' not to bring them in, but did so immediately they won the 1997 General Election? It was not the Torys or the Lib-Dems... Yes that's right... it was the Liarbore Party...!!
So you should be venting your demonstration in occupying the Liarbore Party HQ in London Town.
- Mr I Grumble, Tax Slave of Labour's Legacy of Profligacy and Incompetence Englandshire UK, 30/11/2010 18:28
Report abuse
I think David Cameron has amply illustrated that the Coalition has done a lot to ensure that fairness runs through these proposals. I also thnik that those who describe free education at university level as a right are mistaken. It may be a worthy aspiration but it is not a right. There is no reason why graduates who can afford to repay loans should not do so on reasonable terms and I think the terms set by the Coalition are reasonable - violent protests are not.
- James Elliott, Eastbourne UK, 30/11/2010 18:21
Report abuse
The real argument about education funding is not that of what tuition fee rate is 'acceptable', but that free public education is a principle that must be respected by any legitimate Government. When, as now, a publicly funded Education system is being fought for by current, future and former students, this struggle must be understood to be one amongst others for state funding to be used for the direct betterment of its population. The socially catastrophic profit-making of the finance sector directly or indirectly through the devastating and socially divisive privatisation of education can not continue.
- George, London, 30/11/2010 18:01
Report abuse
Gary,
Bankers bonuses are paid with PRIVATE money, this means that it was made by a person or group of persons not connected to the government. They are paying bonuses out of their own pockets, not yours.
- Lewis, Kent, England, 30/11/2010 17:50
Report abuse
Let us look at the assumption from previous comments that ultimately all the blame lies with bankers. The UK Government, under Gordon Browns Leadership, pumped £185bn into British banks over 2008-2009. I believe any government in power at the time would have done this – I will explain a bit later on. For this price the government received assets valued at £287bn. That’s how much the banks were prepared to give away in order to get help. Now I’m not defending the position of the banks at the time, nor am I defending the governments’ lack of monitoring of financial institutions. However, in the long term (possibly very long term) the tax payer will benefit from this. Let us compare this amount to that of the UK National Debt which sits at £952.8bn(64.6% of GDP – office office national statistics 25th oct 2010). It is only a drop in the ocean in comparison to the amount of money the Labour government over spent while trying to provide their overly complex welfare state. I think it is very important to point out that if the government had not bailed out the banks then some of them would certainly not be trading anymore and the people who would lose out the most would be those with savings.
- Chris- its easy to spend someone else's money, Watford, 30/11/2010 17:48
Report abuse
And don't forget the 19 billion that the banks offset (i.e avoided)against the losses which were bailed out by tax payers money!
And by the way,the age of compulsory education doesn't change to 18 for 5 YEARS, so thousands of students over the next few years will be denied basic funding and then demonised if they can't get a job and are forced to claim benefits.
I really wish people would get their facts straight before attacking the student protests!
- Ollie, London, 30/11/2010 17:45
Report abuse
Cameron also moaning about the £5 billion the government pay towards higher education, but doesn't seem to mind the bankers being paid £7 billion in bonuses from our money .... and they are the people who got us all in this economic mess to start with
- Gary Murdock, London, England, 30/11/2010 17:40
Report abuse
Cameron also moaning about the £5 billion the government pay towards higher education, but doesn't seem to mind the bankers being paid £7 billion in bonuses from our money .... and they are the people who got us all in this economic mess to start with
- Gary Murdock, London, England, 30/11/2010 17:35
Report abuse
I'm a student and I agree with this wholeheartedly. If people would actually work this out first before getting indignant because of their own prejudices (and don't tell me I'm making things up because this is exactly what my friends and classmates are doing), you'll see that in fact, many will pay back even less with this rise. It is practically a raise in name only. It is terribly unfair to say that the taxpayers should have to pick up this bill.
Many say "why bail out the banks? Party for the rich etcetera etcetera." Well, it is the banks who sustain our economy, they may have brought it down but without them, our economy will be nothing. Is it really the everyday man who contributes the most to the economy? No, it's the banks and big corporations. If the banks aren't helped, then everyone and their dog complains that, "the Tories wrecked the economy."
At the end of the day, you can't please everyone and at a time when public services are being cut, it's wrong to suggest that taxpayers should be paying out even more towards our education when they themselves, are saving. We are not going to be paying back any substantial amount more when the fees rise, in fact, it's really only the students who have the money to pay up front, who will be paying more.
People shouldn't expect the state to pay for everything, especially during our current financial circumstances. And do those students really expect the taxpayer to feel sympathetic to us after their vile crinimial acts?!
- Rachel, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England, 30/11/2010 17:25
Report abuse
Doesn't the rise in the age of compulsory education (by Labour) mean that EMA is pointless anyway?
It is designed to encourage poorer students to stay in education until they are 18. If the age of compulsory education is rising to 18, surely there is no need for EMA?
- Lewis, Kent, England, 30/11/2010 17:18
Report abuse
My girlfriend teaches in a further education college where many of her students come from some of the poorest areas in London. 100 of them walked out along with a number of teachers to join the protest as they know that if the EMA is cut they won't be able to go to college and many will end up on the dole.
This has nothing to with 'wealthy students' on 'mickey mouse' courses - this is a fight to defend education for all in this country.
How can tories and the press consistently attack people in this country for 'gorging themselves on debt' and demand they show responsibility etc and then teach our children that it's perfectly ok to get into tens of thousands of debt just to have an education?!
- Ollie, London, 30/11/2010 17:00
Report abuse
I'm in sixth form and I agree with the limit rise.
Why should poor, hardworking families pay (through taxes) for a teenager from a wealthy family to go to uni?
Why should taxpayers pay for people to study 'event management' and other mickey mouse courses?
A lot of the protesters seem to think you have to pay all the fees upfront, they may never have to pay them back!
All that will happen is that the standard of teaching and learning will go up and noone will pay £25000+ to take photography, universities will become places of real education.
- Lewis, Kent, England, 30/11/2010 16:45
Report abuse
If David Cameron really thinks what he's doing is 'fair' he is extremely niave, why are the bankers and the government that allowed the financial crisis to occur (i don't mean the previous government, this go way further back to de-regulation)paying back the debt. Does Mr. Cameron not realise that his current actions are alienating a whole generation of voters?
And to the students that are causing violence your giving the rest of a bad name and giving people excuses to look down on our hard work, please keep it peaceful.
- Lisa, Gloucestershire, 30/11/2010 16:42
Report abuse
For all those calling for students to take some financial responsibility for their education (yes Cameron I'm looking to you), I'd just like to ask -
Why are banks, who's greed caused the biggest financial crisis since the 30's, not being asked to bear financial responsibility by PAYING US BACK? Instead they're being rewarded by bigger and bigger bonuses.
Why aren't arms companies and oil companies expected to bear financial responsibility for wars that they're making billions out of - all subsidised by us?
Why are rich tax evaders like Vodaphone, Murdoch, oh and George Osbourne not asked to bear financial responsibility by paying the taxes they owe?
This seems to only ever be applied to public services that everyone pays for in tax anyway. And finally can someone please tell me what tax is for if it's not for health, education, pensions and public services that benefit everyone?
The tories are the real 'spongers' not students.
- Ollie, London, 30/11/2010 16:34
Report abuse
I think students should make a contribution. That's fair. It must be.
Having seen students on nights out where I live, they spend far too much of their 'precious' student loans on booze. One of my own friends spent his entire semester loan in two weeks. I think many students are recklessly with their spending.
Let's not forget the world has just been through the biggest financial meltdown since globalisation.
Also some of these comments are laughable, some are quite interesting.
This comment is rather silly: 'In the Uk theres a lack of people needed to fill qualified/educated roles, and the proposed cuts will just make that wider and wider , Jobs for the boys seems to be the con-dem motto.'
Jobs for the boys the Con-Dem motto? What non-sense. The jobs for the boys was Labour's motto, with it's ridulously oversized state, creating non-jobs for talentless, lazy, private sector rejects.
- Not a student, The Real UK, 30/11/2010 16:32
Report abuse
I think students should make a contribution. That's fair. It must be.
Having seen students on nights out where I live, they spend far too much of their 'precious' student loans on booze. One of my own friends spent his entire semester loan in two weeks. I think many students are recklessly with their spending.
Let's not forget the world has just been through the biggest financial meltdown since globalisation.
Also some of these comments are laughable, some are quite interesting.
This comment is rather silly: 'In the Uk theres a lack of people needed to fill qualified/educated roles, and the proposed cuts will just make that wider and wider , Jobs for the boys seems to be the con-dem motto.'
Jobs for the boys the Con-Dem motto? What non-sense. The jobs for the boys was Labour's motto, with it's ridulously oversized state, creating non-jobs for talentless, lazy, private sector rejects.
- Not a student, The Real UK, 30/11/2010 16:31
Report abuse
No one has mentioned about the cost of university courses. Isn’t it about time UK universities looked at what the Americans universities do (Havard, Yale, Stanford) and have video courses available to students on the Internet, making courses available to a much wider audience at a fraction of the cost. Lecturers then have much more time available for extra group tuition, one to ones and course homework. Yet again this is probably a too radical solution for the UK establishment.
- Robert Thornton, Malaga, Spain, 30/11/2010 16:29
Report abuse
I think that asking students to pay is only fair.I come from a council estate, worked part time through sixth form and uni and then had to work through my pgce year. This was all because of having to pay upfront for uni and not rely on state hands outs (EMA anybody?) Etc. paying after graduation seems like a great compromise and actually benefits those from low income families. I agree with the idea of protesting but wish people would not just do so because it is the tories, but think about what the idea is andanalyze it first!
- David, Chichester, 30/11/2010 16:21
Report abuse
In response to students protesting on the Hull university grounds: Using vulgar chants over a loud-speaker is NOT the way to change government policy (especially since the only people who will hear it already attend university, but by the by), it is a very successful way of stopping me from concentrating on studying for a degree that will allow me to pay whatever debt I end up with - perhaps you should do this as well.
If you go to a university worth attending and are doing a course that is worth taking the monetary gains in the long run will make up for the short term losses you may make.
Essentially this is a wise long-term decision, one which might make a university degree worth something again, because to be frank your creative writing degrees from Teeside are not worth a penny.
P.S., any patronising tone that you infer from this is probably to be taken from the fact that it is aimed at people who are not intelligent enough to understand for themselves the reasons to raise tuition fees.
- James, Hull, UK, 30/11/2010 16:20
Report abuse
Spot on as usual DC. The tub thumping socialists will no doubt proclaim this as a terrible attack on human rights or some other such nonsense, but while you enjoy all the benefits of public spending, try to remember that people like me AREN'T going to continue to fund you whingeing morons.
I am trying to support a family and two children. I chose not to go to university [it was the first year of tuition fees] and went to work instead & pay tax! Most careers DON'T need a degree, irrespective of what 13 years of Communist rule brainwashed you into believing, and MOST students don't need to be there. MOST uni's were better off as poly's and MOST degree courses are utter twaddle. British students should be paying for further education, they get a decent standard of education for free to 18 and there are alternatives to university for those who have the moral fibre to knuckle down.
Frankly, I feel these protesting students are fairly typical of the idealistic yet ill informed know it all young [like I was 10 years ago] and they would be better off getting back to college and doing some work - it is term time after all. Pay up for your higher education, work hard, appreciate it, get a better job, earn more, pay back what you borrowed and then someone else will be able to enjoy the same benefits in the future.
I LOVE what the coalition has done so far. Yes I've lost some child benefit, but I don't mind giving up something to help put right the mess we're in.
We must all chip in
- SH, Worcs, UK, 30/11/2010 16:20
Report abuse
Rupert those doctors are rewarded through huge salaries, not altruism. So you can't try to imply that the public in general shoud be happy to pay for their training. This is Cameron's point. If you go on to a high paying career you should pay a greater share of your tuition costs. We have gone from sending less than 10% to more than 40%. Ask an engineer to work out the extra tax burden for everybody.
- Mark, London, 30/11/2010 16:15
Report abuse
Oh I see...so Fashion, Makeup or Media Studies aren't 'real' subjects are they Peter? Do you think that people who do these subjects are only doing them because they don't have the ability to be academic? How incredibly narrow minded of you.
Yes, I'm sure everyone listened the first time and knows that you won't have to pay your fees back until you earn over 21k. But what about the interest that gets slapped on top of your loan every month? The debt doesn't just freeze when you finish your course.
I left University 2 years ago and the fact that the interest on my loan is steadily jacking my debt up is completely daunting. It's the interest on the already massive fees that leaves you with no way out. Who wants to be left with decades of debt?
- Nina, London, 30/11/2010 15:55
Report abuse
Patronising rubbish, and the height of arrogance to suggest that anyone disagreeing with your ill-conceived policies has failed to understand them.
These proposals will cause a dramatic fall in the number of students from disadvantaged families going to university, and most students who do end up going to university will end up paying more and being in debt far longer. For shame...
- Adey70, London, UK, 30/11/2010 15:51
Report abuse
Patronising rubbish, and the height of arrogance to suggest that anyone disagreeing with your ill-conceived policies has failed to understand them.
These proposals will cause a huge fall in the number of students from disadvantaged families going to university, and most students who do end up going will end up paying more and being in debt far longer. For shame...
- Adey70, London, UK, 30/11/2010 15:50
Report abuse
On the one hand I am delighted that university students are making a noise – for a generation and a half they have been rather too quiet. University students need to make a noise and then, later, find out about life. On the other hand the next generation of potential Labour candidates, currently doing one of the few true apprenticeships (serving as officials in the NUS), should be more open as to the issues in question. Generally union officials are far from being fools but tend to take the rest of their membership as so and as cannon fodder to their own aspiration and ambitions.
There are far too many vocational training programmes that are masquerading as degrees and which have absolutely no academic rigour or research value at all. These are not what universities should be engaged in at all. These should be stopped. University students should be studying serious subjects in the sciences, maths, engineering, medicine, history etc – all of which have a real value to society. These of course need very capable and charismatic lecturers and researchers and therefore cost a lot to teach. Graduates in these subjects also tend to do better and can afford to pay back some of the costs that lead to their own benefit. The days of the depleting numbers of tax payers has to be managed.
The righteous indignation of some of the commentators displays a serious prejudice toward a non-excitant utopian socialist state. Having visited and worked in many socialist states they are completely dysfunctional.
- john, st albans, 30/11/2010 15:17
Report abuse
@Peter J, Canterbury, Kent
"I can't stand this attitude that's taken hold in our culture that everything is a right and should be given to the person by the state without question. How about some personal responsibility?"
You may be right Peter J. I think that everybody should have to pay for any medical treatment or die, pay into a personal pension or starve and live on the streets, have a car or stay at home, form vigilante groups or get mugged etc, etc.
- T. £lair, Bankers'R'Us, Cayman Islands, 30/11/2010 15:12
Report abuse
david,
clearly you've never taken out a student loan. or been harrassed by some private company with all the wrong incentives to prove every detail of your private financial details, in triplicate, (with threats of legal action) until it becomes easier to pay up... even though, legally, you don't have to...
- fred, london, 30/11/2010 15:09
Report abuse
The right to protest within a kettle is not a right to protest.
We should all pay for education, not just those who receive it. We all benefit from an educated population.
The Tory dogma of everyone looks after themselves is immoral, we should all look after our neighbour.
- a right to protest, London, London., 30/11/2010 15:02
Report abuse
So it's not 'public spending' on HE, it's 'public subsidy'. A telling choice of phrase. The fact is that ALL taxpayers benefit from HE, whether they go to Uni or not. So do UK-based companies, small and large, who employ graduates. Students, society and corporations all benefit. So how about sharing the cost between all 3? Some student contribution, some taxpayer funding, some corporation tax funding. Loading all the cost onto the students alone is unfair. I benefitted from Uni education in 1978-81 when the local authority paid (I was from an ordinary family). I bet many MPs considering the fees question did likewise. Our generation should similarly pay towards the cost of the next generation's education; it's in our interest, and its fair.
- Simon Higgins, Liverpool, U.K., 30/11/2010 15:02
Report abuse
Yet Welsh students are having their fees frozen no matter if they go to a uni in England or Wales. Yes, that's fair.
- Jane, London, 30/11/2010 14:58
Report abuse
I am not a media studies graduate and have no particular affiliation with the subject, but isn't it unfortunate for those who continue to point to such courses as being worthless and needing to be scrapped, that media studies graduates are some of the most employable people, apparently with over 72% of such graduates being in employment within 6 months (and hence paying taxes to prop up the failing finance sector and other 'high value' industries)
- Robert Haymon-Collins, Stroud, 30/11/2010 14:58
Report abuse
This is just propoganda , How can you justify the millions used to bail out the banks who got themselves into the mess , The Tax relief to the rich , This is why a tory governments bad the rich get richer the poor get screwed.
In the Uk theres a lack of people needed to fill qualified/educated roles, and the proposed cuts will just make that wider and wider , Jobs for the boys seems to be the con-dem motto.
If the want to make cuts to education etc fair enough But how about firstly making the banks pay back the money they borrowed , Removing the shed loads of tax relief that the have given their mates.
Maybe also removing the subsidised food and drink for mp's lets see how they then feel when all the perks that they are blatantly ignoring receive the same cuts the are throwing at everything else? I mean as it is Mp's are vastly overpaid for what they do and the get given near free food/drink .......
- Michael bayliss, cwmamman wales, 30/11/2010 14:56
Report abuse
@ Peter and Robert, well done for swallowing the Government's lies wholesale. Your powers of critical thought are clearly firing on all cylinders.
It is critical analysis and awareness that University teaches. And the results benefit us all.
The tax bill is tiny compared to the cost of bailing out banks and fighting endless wars. Some people need to get their priorities straight.
- Simon, Brighton, 30/11/2010 14:53
Report abuse
Low earning taxpayers don't benefit from universities?! Tell them that next time they visit a doctor, get medication designed by a pharmacologist, drive a car made safe by an engineer, live in a house designed by an architect, and so on...
Also I'm sick of this line that "anyone who opposes our proposals doesn't understand them", it's patronising and simply incorrect.
- Rupert Holland, Birmingham, England, 30/11/2010 14:45
Report abuse
Low earning taxpayers don't benefit from universities?! Tell them that next time they visit a doctor, get medication designed by a pharmacologist, drive a car made safe by an engineer, live in a house designed by an architect, and so on...
Also I'm sick of this line that "anyone who opposes our proposals doesn't understand them", it's patronising and simply incorrect.
- Rupert Holland, Birmingham, England, 30/11/2010 14:41
Report abuse
Mr Cameron - the OBR, the IFS and HEPI have all made it clear that THESE CHANGES IN UNIVERSITY FUNDING WILL NOT SAVE THE COUNTRY MONEY; rather they will cost the country more money each year at least within this parliament, and most likely for some years afterwards.
We have examined the fine detail of what is being proposed, we are objecting based on hard evidence.
How about you?
- Nordelius, Brentford, 30/11/2010 14:39
Report abuse
The patronising tone of this tory nonsense is ridiculous! Don't pretend students, teachers, academics and all the many ordinary workers who support the protests don't know EXACTLY why they are protesting these disgusting con-dem attacks on education.
The idea that anyone can claim it's 'fair' to cut the EMA which means poorer students will not be able to afford to go to college and therefore university is appaling. To then saddle those that do make it with debts of 40 - 60k is unforgivable all the while at the same time cutting the budgets for teaching. My girlfriend is a teacher and is absolutely inspired by the walkout of her students at her college. They clearl know a lot more about education for ordinary people than a tory millionaire Bullingdon boy who went to Eton.
The truth of the matter is that billions have been given to the banks, billions written off in tax to the rich (such as the 6 billion write off for Vodaphone and the 19 million tax offset by banks against losses which were bailed out with taxes!), millions claimed in MP's 'expenses', billions spent on illegal wars, billions spent on trident and now you want to make ordinary people pay for a crisis they had nothing to do with.
I'm a tax payer not a student and I pay my taxes to go towards education, the NHS and public services NOT for bankers, war and the expenses of 19 millionaires in the cabinet.
And sorry Dave, before you patronise anymore - I know exactly why I'm objecting to these Thatcherite cuts.
- Ollie, London, 30/11/2010 14:33
Report abuse
Charlie, why shouldn't students bear the cost of their own degrees? If they are going to University to get better qualifications to get better earnings, why shouldn't they pay it back, or contribute to this? Med students have been doing this for years, but no-one has complained or rioted. I can't stand this attitude that's taken hold in our culture that everything is a right and should be given to the person by the state without question. How about some personal responsibility?
Students will also not have to pay upfront, unlike now, so anybody saying "I'll have to save from the age of 10" etc is wrong and ill-informed. If you don't want the debt, don't go. If you want to go, then accept it. I did, and I'm paying it back now. Was it worth it? Absolutely. But then I didn't do Surf Science, or Media Studies, or Fashion and Makeup. We could quite easily make education cheaper by simply scrapping these courses, or closing the bottom 20 Universities in the country, or saying that no University can accept someone with less than 3 Cs. But since this would be "unfair" to the less "academically minded," we'll let economics, rather than academics, do the sorting. I can't imagine anyone will want to take up such a pointless course with such a prospective high debt.
- Peter J, Canterbury, Kent, 30/11/2010 14:02
Report abuse
So those years of writing press releases weren't entirely wasted
- Sceptic, London, 30/11/2010 13:35
Report abuse
Nice one Dave. Except this measure does nothing to improve the nations finances, in fact quite the opposite.
The new starting point of 21,000 is in today's money, not 2016; and it will only be raised every five years.
Why are you making students bear the major portion of the cost of their teaching, by removing the state's contribution?
I'm sorry but you and Clegg have a very alien concept of fairness.
And yet you still expect the trst of students and their families.
- charlie, gravesend, 30/11/2010 13:26
Report abuse
"Unlike our predecessors we won't patronise the public by pretending there's a bottomless pit of money we can dig into. There isn't, and that means difficult choices need to be made."
Difficult choices such as:
£8 billion for new trains
£7 billion to bail out Ireland
£8 billion in foreign aid
£billions to the EU
- Dave "cast iron guarantee" Cameron, Banks and Corporations come first - the rest of you can get stuffed, 30/11/2010 12:58
Report abuse
It is worth reading this one (can't believe I just sided with our PM, this easily). I do side with the government on many points re. education, just not in agreement with the funding cuts for some further education students, the £30 lifeline, if the case. What do you think? And, will universities be lowering their A level grade acceptance in some instances, these being where some students don't achieve the crucial A* results (must be genuine instances where they should bend, no). Also, on the subject of younger folk, will you be doing something re. affordable housing for this group (paying in excess of £500 per month already so could easily afford the contributions on a more secure shared apartment). There's a little story from a girl in the ES today on her own experience (I know quite a few like her with this same kind of story and, being the mother of one myself.
S.....
- M, London, 30/11/2010 12:55
Report abuse
Nice one Dave,tell the students that they really do not understand it.Insulting their intelligence will get them onside.Posh twit.
- colin, barking essex, 30/11/2010 12:53
Report abuse
It's about time that todays students saw university as an academic challenge to achieve a degree that would hold them in good stead in the job market and not as two or three years of socializing ending up with a so called degree that was not worth the paper it was printed on. Funding should encourage students to go towards degrees in Engineering and not Media Studies and the like.
- Robert Thornton, Malaga, Spain, 30/11/2010 12:31
Report abuse
