UK's Tuition Fee Protest (Images)

[cristo]

You mean the Lib Dems failed to research whether or not they could make good on their campaign promises, or worse, just didn't care, so long as they were elected? You mean the voters failed to ascertain whether the Lib Dems could make good on their campaign promises?

That's not true: all the Lib Dem's policies were researched, and costed, the costs clearly shown in their party manifesto. Had they won sole power, I believe that they would have carried out their promises, since there was no financial reason why they shouldn't. However, what you, and the public, need to realize is that the Lib Dems are not in power. We have a coalition government governing as per the coalition agreement that was drawn up in May.

The problem is that this country is not used to coalition governments, so the parties make pledges for what they will do when they get into power, and nobody realizes that, when there is no clear winner in an election, cuts have to be made to the promises, and the parties are therefore not governing as per their manifesto and the costing therein.



As for the world cup, actually, I think it would have been a great money-maker. Think about it, all the infrastructure, the stadia etc. all exist, so there would be minimal outgoings (unlike the olympics!).

 

[JaredJames]

Cristo, I do agree with you, but my problem isn't that the Lib Dems promised to abolish fees and then didn't. I fully understand why they couldn't.

My problem is with the fact they didn't defend the current cap. They may not have been able to abolish them, but they could have voted to ensure they didn't get raised. They went from "we'll get rid of them" to "we're raising them". The important point is there was a middle ground, which would have saved their public image and wouldn't have infuriated students into rioting.
The vote was close, but if all Lib Dems had switched sides (well actually, as little as around 14 I believe) the vote wouldn't have passed and the cap wouldn't have raised. Lib Dems remain 'popular' with the public for not allowing the raise and students face no changes to cause these protests.

 

[JaredJames]

Mugs, won't respond point by point, don't have time at the moment. So I'll keep it brief.

Cristo answers your first point nicely.

You can't blame the people for voting in someone who promises what they want / like. That's the whole point of the campaign promises.

As per my above post. It is because the Lib Dems simply rolled over and raised the fees that I feel infuriated the people. They could have voted not to change the current cap, taken the middle ground (between abolishing and raising), but they didn't.

They've committed party suicide.

 

[xxChrisxx]

They've committed party suicide.

Being realistic, they haven't unfortunately. Another general election is 5 years away, that's three years after the raised fees will have come into effect. Time for the rage to die down.

They are getting flak now, they'll get it when it comes into effect, they'll still be third next time the GE comes round.

So in the end nothings changed really.


For a young professional in the UK there is very little to look forward to working in Britain, no wonder so many are emigrating to Austrailia and New Zealand. If I had more balls (or no family) i'd do it in an instant.

 

[JaredJames]

Nick Clegg's support (according to a recent poll) has gone from 66% pre-election to less than 25% now.

They'll only be the 'third' party because of numbers.

This, especially with the recent violence, isn't something that will disappear and unless they really do something to make up for it then it'll come back on them badly.

Remember, all the people who voted for them now (or at least the student/student family contingent) won't touch them with a barge pole next time and no one will believe their promises (whether rightly or wrongly).

 

[xxChrisxx]

Remember, all the people who voted for them now (or at least the student/student family contingent) won't touch them with a barge pole next time and no one will believe their promises (whether rightly or wrongly).

You are probably still too young to have realized that people, in general, are stupid. They also have very short memories where politics is concered (becuase many just don't care, as 5 years between elections is too long).

It's like when labour got in for the third term (I think you'll have been too young to vote back then), they had a massive rise in pensioners vote becuase they waved an increased winter fuel allowance in front of them like a carrot.

It's still irrelevant because it's unlikely we'll get another coalition government. So the lib dems will go back to having nothing to do for 5 years.

 

[cristo]

The vote was close, but if all Lib Dems had switched sides (well actually, as little as around 14 I believe) the vote wouldn't have passed and the cap wouldn't have raised. Lib Dems remain 'popular' with the public for not allowing the raise and students face no changes to cause these protests.

You cannot have cabinet ministers 'switching sides' and voting against the government. If we get to a stage where that is happening, the lib dem ministers should simply resign. The Lib Dem's dealt with this poorly, of course: they should simply have made the point earlier that they had to give in on one of their election promises in order to form a government. This, I think, would have angered the public a lot less if it was done months ago.

The fact of the matter, regardless of what people say, is that the youngsters and the students did not exercise their voting power, otherwise the Lib Dems would have obtained far more seats, and we may well not be in this situation now.

 

[JaredJames]

The MP's are there because their constituents voted them into represent them.

The MP's votes on a subject are supposed to reflect the want/need of the constituents.

I know it's degraded and no longer works like that (if it ever really did), but there is where one of my problems with the system is. Once voted in it becomes about getting your own parties way (with a majority more easily than now). For some reason they decide that the views of those who voted them in don't exist.

If your constituents don't want to raise fees, they are supposed to reflect that in parliament and vote accordingly. What is the point in having a government in place, elected to represent you when they don't represent you.

Do we have figures on how many students voted? I know a lot in my uni did.

 

[xxChrisxx]

The fact of the matter, regardless of what people say, is that the youngsters and the students did not exercise their voting power, otherwise the Lib Dems would have obtained far more seats, and we may well not be in this situation now.

You'll find quite a few University areas are lib dem controlled (that aren't in labour/conservative safe seats). I know Sheffield was becuase every single student voted lib dem and the students outnumbered the residents. In Manchester which is a labour safe seat, even if every single student went out and voted the labour candidate would still win.

You'll also find that some voting stations (in student areas) were swamped by students waiting for several hours to vote and then being turned away.

You just need to look at the way things went this time, Lib Dem votes were up yet they still lost 5 (or so) seats.

It's a curiosity of first past the post. Vote density matters more than acutal number of votes leading to a massively high number of wasted votes.

 

[Gokul43201]

The MP's votes on a subject are supposed to reflect the want/need of the constituents.

General question: Do you think MPs should never exercise their own judgment on an unpopular issue?

 

[xxChrisxx]

General question: Do you think MPs should never exercise their own judgment on an unpopular issue?

Compared to towing the company line? Yes.

They didn't even have to vote against it, the Lib dems could have just abstained.

In this case there were a couple of backbench rebellions, and a couple of lib dem MPs resigned. At least those guys stayed true to their principles. They were voted in becuase of their views and stance and stuck by them. It's the ones that were voted in pledging to stop a raise in fees then just fold like a deck chair that raged people. As Cristo said, it would have gone a long way for the Lib Dems to be more open earlier. Had they said 'well we've changed out minds for 'x' and 'y' reasons. People would still ahve been annoyed but to a lesser extent.

EDIT: Read that as 'ever excercise'.

 

[cristo]

MPs should of course make their own decisions. We vote the MP into be our 'voice' in government, but we also vote him/her into office in order to make difficult decisions for us. Clearly, the MP should make up his own mind, since we cannot have a referendum every time something needs to be decided!

 

[JaredJames]

Compared to towing the company line? Yes.

In this case there were a couple of backbench rebellions, and a couple of lib dem MPs resigned. At least those guys stayed true to their principles. They were voted in becuase of their views.

Agreed.

The MP's who resigned / rebelled are the only ones in my opinion, who deserve to be there.

The MP's are there to represent the people who voted them in, on the basis of what they promise in the election campaign. They are not there to say one thing to get in and then impose their own beliefs onto the people who voted them in once in power (although I'd hope they campaign for what they believe in so the two act as one).

Also to note is that a number of the MP's who voted to raise tuition fees (within the Lib Dems) signed a pledge to abolish the fees. Again, I know it wasn't possible with the coalition, but it doesn't mean they had to vote to raise them. Just because it's a coalition, doesn't mean they have to be the conservatives b*tch.

 

[JaredJames]

MPs should of course make their own decisions. We vote the MP into be our 'voice' in government, but we also vote him/her into office in order to make difficult decisions for us. Clearly, the MP should make up his own mind, since we cannot have a referendum every time something needs to be decided!

Yes, but people made their feelings clear on this issue and it deserved more consideration than simply ignoring people.

Once again, the UK government are doing what they want and not listening to the people.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, but people made their feelings clear on this issue and it deserved more consideration than simply ignoring people.

Might one not also say that the budget issue is clearly of importance at this time, and this particular vote deserved more consideration than simply being a reflection of the opinions of the people?

I don't know what the motivation was for the Lib Dems that changed stances, but ... if I vote for someone based on some common set of positions that we share, I would still prefer that person, once elected, to make decisions based on his/her best assessment of the issue at the time (even if that's a decision I oppose), rather than blindly keep a campaign promise or sheepishly tow the party line. Of course, I'd also expect that the campaign promises not be a popularity gimmick, which they often are.

 

[JaredJames]

Might one not also say that the budget issue is clearly of importance at this time, and this particular vote deserved more consideration than simply being a reflection of the opinions of the people?

There were three main parties in the election and all had different plans for financial recovery. They didn't all include such drastic cuts. Given we don't have a true conservative government, why are we simply doing what they want? The lib dems had a chance to impose their will here, by showing they wouldn't stand for raising tuition fees. But they didn't, they rolled over an accepted the conservatives.

So far, I haven't seen anything showing we actually need all of these cuts. We only have them because the conservatives want them.

Obviously it needs more than just the peoples opinion, but then as above, I haven't seen anything showing that these cuts are for the best (outside of the conservatives policies). So I don't know if it's a case of us needing them or the conservatives wanting them.

So perhaps we should have a better analysis done to give a more structured and reliable opinion on what is really needed (done by someone not connected to the government).

I don't know what the motivation was for the Lib Dems that changed stances, but ... if I vote for someone based on some common set of positions that we share, I would still prefer that person, once elected, to make decisions based on his/her best assessment of the issue at the time (even if that's a decision I oppose), rather than blindly keep a campaign promise or sheepishly tow the party line. Of course, I'd also expect that the campaign promises not be a popularity gimmick, which they often are.

Yes I agree, but I also agree with Chris in that they could have come out and explained things sooner and given us reasons for it. Instead they went about this situation very poorly and now look what we're left with, rioting.

I'd also add that nothing changed pre / post election in regards to the financial situation. If they could work it before, why couldn't it be worked after? Unless they were blatantly lying pre-election. We have a coalition government, there's no reason they couldn't implement policies from both parties, a compromise if you like.

 

[JaredJames]

Well I've just seen something that's really annoyed me.

The government has canceled EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance) which is a payment of up to £30 per week to students in low income family. Paid from 16 to 19 to help them stay on in further education.

However, according UK Border Force tv programme which follows the immigration officers, when an immigrant comes to Britain, if they register with the government as an immigrant they are given and ID card whilst their asylum application is processed and around £33 per week to live off. Plus get your kids to go to school and healthcare.

Sources:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/support/
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/support/cashsupport/

There are other forms of support too, this is specifically for asylum seekers.

This is horrendous in my opinion. What this tells me is that we are willing to pay for random people with no connection to the UK at all and yet we won't help our citizens. This country has gone to the dogs. I find this deeply disturbing.

 

[WhoWee]

Well I've just seen something that's really annoyed me.

The government has canceled EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance) which is a payment of up to £30 per week to students in low income family. Paid from 16 to 19 to help them stay on in further education.

However, according UK Border Force tv programme which follows the immigration officers, when an immigrant comes to Britain, if they register with the government as an immigrant they are given and ID card whilst their asylum application is processed and around £33 per week to live off. Plus get your kids to go to school and healthcare.

Sources:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/support/
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/support/cashsupport/

There are other forms of support too, this is specifically for asylum seekers.

This is horrendous in my opinion. What this tells me is that we are willing to pay for random people with no connection to the UK at all and yet we won't help our citizens. This country has gone to the dogs. I find this deeply disturbing.

I guess ideology has no loyalty to a specific group?

 

[JaredJames]

Well the government should be looking after its people first and then others.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well the government should be looking after its people first and then others.

Was the EMA was the ONLY form of government assistance available to British citizens?

 

[WhoWee]

Well the government should be looking after its people first and then others.

I'm not sure that's the politically correct global view?

The ideology of redistribution and fairness is great as long as you're the beneficiary. Please acknowledge, there must be a few hundred million (?) people more deserving out there - at least they didn't give the (citizens) classroom seats away - just forced them to find a job or a loan.

 

[JaredJames]

Was the EMA was the ONLY form of government assistance available to British citizens?

For this particular circumstance, yes.

 

[JaredJames]

Politically correct or not, I don't like the idea of a government that helps non citizens ahead of citizens.

 

[WhoWee]

Politically correct or not, I don't like the idea of a government that helps non citizens ahead of citizens.

I agree. Unfortunately, when expressing the same concern in the US - I'm labeled one of the "R" words. My guess is we both may need to find a way to accept it as the new norm.

 

[JaredJames]

Yes, but the fact the government are trying to make cuts and they go to students before people who have nothing to do with the UK and are of no benefit to us says it all.

 

[Gokul43201]

For this particular circumstance, yes.

By "this particular circumstance" I assume you are referring to tuition aid for low income groups. If so, that's not what my question is about.

You said that immigrants on their way to citizenship get $33 per week in assistance (does this apply to all immigrants?) and you then implied that the government was treating these people better than its own citizens. By that, I understand you are saying that British citizens with financial conditions comparable to these immigrants do not receive as much assistance. So my question is this: how much TOTAL assistance does such a citizen receive? Without this information, it is difficult to judge the validity of your implied accusation.

 

[JaredJames]

By "this particular circumstance" I assume you are referring to tuition aid for low income groups. If so, that's not what my question is about.

For low income students and immigrants, my answer stands.

You said that immigrants on their way to citizenship get $33 per week in assistance (does this apply to all immigrants?) and you then implied that the government was treating these people better than its own citizens. By that, I understand you are saying that British citizens with financial conditions comparable to these immigrants do not receive as much assistance. So my question is this: how much TOTAL assistance does such a citizen receive? Without this information, it is difficult to judge the validity of your implied accusation.

Asylum seekers is who I was mainly referring to.

A 16 year old student, who decides to remain in school receives no help aside from the payment of up to £30 per week EMA. Because they are still in school, they cannot claim any more help.

My problem lies with the fact that the government are saying "sod the children of our people who want to remain in school", we need to save money let's take it from them, and yet they still pay out to people who aren't even guaranteed to be allowed to remain in the country.

Think of it like this, I enter the country illegally, I apply for asylum, they pay for a place for me to live, they give me cash for living costs, they provide me with healthcare and any children I have with education. I'm not even guaranteed to be allowed to remain in the country and I'm not allowed to work so not paying anything back to the country.

It's one thing to debate the tax payer funding citizens for various ventures such as university, but it's a completely different issue when they are expected to fund people who are nothing to do with the country.

What are the government thinking when they look at the financial crisis and say "hmm, let's cause problems for our citizens but continue to pump money into people who have nothing to do with the government / country".

 

[cristo]

A 16 year old student, who decides to remain in school receives no help aside from the payment of up to £30 per week EMA. Because they are still in school, they cannot claim any more help.

At 16 years old, if you remain in school, you are classed as a child. Your parents get child support, and if deemed needy they get the benefits that assist you to live.

Comparing this case to someone who comes into the country seeking asylum is like comparing apples to flying saucers. I think it needs to be realized that claiming asylum is a last ditch response, done because someone is persecuted enough that it is no longer safe for that person to live in his/her own country. Just because there are a certain number of failed asylum seekers who aren't in this situation doesn't mean that we should tarnish those who really are in need. As a civilised country, we should support those that are being persecuted, regardless of their nationality.

 

[JaredJames]

At 16 years old, if you remain in school, you are classed as a child. Your parents get child support, and if deemed needy they get the benefits that assist you to live.

Parents are not the child. Just because the parents get something doesn't mean the child sees it. There is a difference.

Living in the Welsh Valleys I'm very much aware of this and it is the case with a lot of people where the parents see it as extra income and the benefits don't get passed onto the child.

Comparing this case to someone who comes into the country seeking asylum is like comparing apples to flying saucers. I think it needs to be realized that claiming asylum is a last ditch response, done because someone is persecuted enough that it is no longer safe for that person to live in his/her own country. Just because there are a certain number of failed asylum seekers who aren't in this situation doesn't mean that we should tarnish those who really are in need. As a civilised country, we should support those that are being persecuted, regardless of their nationality.

I have no problem with helping the truly needy, but there is a damn good reason these people manage to get from [middle eastern country] to the UK and not want to stop in any of the lovely European countries in between. If you are really that desperate why would you trek all the way across France for the UK when the French will help you with such asylum problems? It's because the UK is a soft touch.

Asylum may have been intended as a last ditch response, but as the programme shows, it is offered as a last choice to those refused entry to Britain.
If an American was to come to Britain and got refused entry, they are given their options, one of which is to claim asylum if they really want to stay. It has become a last ditch attempt to get into the country.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Parents are not the child. Just because the parents get something doesn't mean the child sees it. There is a difference.

Parents not fulfilling their obligations to their children is not the same thing as the government not providing financial assistance

 

[Gokul43201]

Think of it like this, I enter the country illegally, I apply for asylum, they pay for a place for me to live, they give me cash for living costs, they provide me with healthcare and any children I have with education. I'm not even guaranteed to be allowed to remain in the country and I'm not allowed to work so not paying anything back to the country.

If this is truly the case, then I must say I find that quite bizarre! But I can understand some very short term assistance for particularly disadvantaged groups of potential immigrants seeking asylum.

 

[Chewy0087]

University choice in the UK is a big deal. If you don't go to a university that is strongly rated in your course then your chances of getting a job after it are seriously affected. Cambridge has a 100% employability rate in some subjects, compared to only 70% for Kingston (where I'm at).

I don't like the idea of only having rich people able to go to somewhere like Cambridge and the poorer only being able to use the 'lesser' places. It puts a bias on people applying for jobs - it gives the rich a greater chance of getting jobs.

You make money the deciding factor in higher education, not academic ability.

People are given a full loan covering the entire of their tuition though, anyone can go to university. Of course you'll have a lot of debt hung around your neck, but if you work hard and get a good degree you'll always end up better off.

 

[JaredJames]

People are given a full loan covering the entire of their tuition though, anyone can go to university. Of course you'll have a lot of debt hung around your neck,

Yes, but it's gone from leaving with £9000 of tuition fee debt to £27000 tuition fee debt.

Note my responses to which I believe you were commenting were in regards to privatising universities. The loan wouldn't cover it all then as it only works to the current cap.

but if you work hard and get a good degree you'll always end up better off.

Not true. I'll try to find the link, but there were 156,000 leaving university last year for only 96,000 jobs.

You can work as hard as you like in some cases and it won't mean a thing. The UK government are causing a lot of redundancies at the moment and the jobs in certain areas just don't exist.

 

[Chewy0087]

Yes, but it's gone from leaving with £9000 of tuition fee debt to £27000 tuition fee debt.

Note my responses to which I believe you were commenting were in regards to privatising universities. The loan wouldn't cover it all then as it only works to the current cap.

Ah yeah I see, but the extra money earned on average from the degree is still far in excess of £27,000. I'd wager.

Although on a point you lightly touched here, I'm in complete disagreement with the fact that one year someone will have ~£10,000 debt from the tuition, and the following cohort will be saddled with £27,000. You could be looking at someone who was born on September 1st at 00.01am who'll potentially be £17,000 worse of, I think a long term gradual scheme would have been much better. (although the government "couldn't of possibly seen this coming", sure.)

 

[JaredJames]

Ah yeah I see, but the extra money earned on average from the degree is still far in excess of £27,000. I'd wager.

I believe we touched on this earlier and agreed on a figure of around £300,000 on average more someone with a degree would earn compared to those without.

But, future earnings don't help if you have to pay upfront in the first case. Although this would be dependent on whether you could request a loan for the full tuition amount or if they would keep the cap in place, forcing you to put up the rest.

Although on a point you lightly touched here, I'm in complete disagreement with the fact that one year someone will have ~£10,000 debt from the tuition, and the following cohort will be saddled with £27,000. You could be looking at someone who was born on September 1st at 00.01am who'll potentially be £17,000 worse of, I think a long term gradual scheme would have been much better. (although the government "couldn't of possibly seen this coming", sure.)

Agree completely. Poorly executed by the government to say the least.