News UK's Tuition Fee Protest (Images)

[Mech_Engineer]

Say what? Is that just you tax taken from income? If you are having 40% effectively taken,
You'll have to forgive my ignorance as I have no idea how things are taxed over there.

about 23% of my income is being taken for federal taxes right now, but I think that's a little more than I actually owe so I'll get a small refund come April 15th. About 3% is state tax, and another few percent is withheld for other assorted gov't programs. It all averages out to about 30% taken out for tax I'll never get back.

As for the other 10-12%, that's elective deductions. 6% into a Roth 401k retirement plan (contributions are post-tax, but earnings and income are tax free when I retire), a few percent for health insurance for my family (wife, daughter), few percent for healthcare savings account, and a few company-specific ones like buying an extra week for vacation. Like I said, everything said and done I'm getting about 60% of my gross earnings in my pocket, about 70% is "mine" after taxes.

 

[cristo]

Sounds like there's no middle ground over there- you can go to the equivalent of ivy-league, but there's no state schools or community colleges...

That's entirely incorrect. There are no private universities here: all universities are 'state' universities. The problem with education comes exactly when you try and run it like a business. At the moment, it costs the same amount of money to attend any university. If you start thinking business-like, then you might say that the 'better' universities would cost more, which means that they will increase their fees, making them utterly unattainable to all but the rich. Then, the less well off are stuck with the worse universities, earn less and therefore their children go to worse universities, etc..

That is why the cap exists, to force all universities to charge the same, and therefore allow people other than the well off a choice of university.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you start thinking business-like, then you might say that the 'better' universities would cost more, which means that they will increase their fees, making them utterly unattainable to all but the rich.

I don't think this speculation holds water. Were it true, this would be the case among the top private schools in the US, but it isn't.

For example:

Harvard College will increase financial aid for undergraduates by 9 percent, to a record $158 million, for the upcoming 2010-11 academic year. This $13 million increase will help keep Harvard affordable and ensure no change in the financial burden for the more than 60 percent of students who receive aid. The estimated average need-based grant award is approximately $40,000.

As a result of this investment, families with undergraduates receiving aid at Harvard will pay an estimated average cost of approximately $11,500 next year, which is unchanged from the current year.
...
In 2007, Harvard introduced a new financial aid plan that dramatically reduced the amount that families with incomes below $180,000 are expected to pay. Families with incomes above $120,000 and below $180,000 with assets typical for these income levels are asked to contribute 10 percent of their incomes. For those families with incomes below $120,000, the parental contribution declines steadily from 10 percent, reaching zero for those with incomes at $60,000 and below.

The median household income in the US is somewhere around $45,000. If you are at the median and get admitted to Harvard, you will get a 100% scholarship! I wouldn't describe that as utterly unattainable to all but the rich.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...duate-financial-aid-by-9-percent-for-2010-11/

 

[JaredJames]

I have to say, that Harvard thing sounds quite good. It seems really well thought out (at least based on what is above).

The problem is, the UK doesn't have this system.

Let me give you a comparison, the UK universities do have some scholarships, but they are generally for individual students (a sort of recognition of excellence type thing and are really hard to get - I went for one). In Kingston they have a bursary system in place for students with low income families. However, in my first year I fell into the lowest bracket (household income under £17,000) and so I got the maximum bursary available, this totalled £600. Hardly that exciting and not really much help in the grand scheme of things.

The current student loan system is that everyone is entitled to 75% of the maintenance loan designed to help with living costs and the full tuition fee costs, with the final 25% of the maintenance loan being decided on the basis of parental/guardian income.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

That's entirely incorrect. There are no private universities here: all universities are 'state' universities.

Ok, not a good thing in my humble opinion. Sounds like a monopoly in which there is no competitive incentive to innovate and perform...

The problem with education comes exactly when you try and run it like a business. At the moment, it costs the same amount of money to attend any university.

So you get in based on academic merit alone, fine. You have to have some excellent grades to get into an ivy-league in the US too.

If you start thinking business-like,

This isn't a bad thing...

then you might say that the 'better' universities would cost more, which means that they will increase their fees, making them utterly unattainable to all but the rich.

The cost of a university will be driven by both supply and demand. If a particular university wants to attract the best teachers and have the best facilities (to in turn attract the best students), they will need to offer incentives such as better salaries. There is a trade-off though, because as they charge more less students will be able to attend. So they can't just charge whatever they want- there is an optimum.

Then, the less well off are stuck with the worse universities, earn less and therefore their children go to worse universities, etc..

First, we're still talking about getting a degree from an accredited university, which means a better job than out of high-school. Even so, there are student loans if you want to go that route, in addition to the fact that private universities will also offer scholarships to the best and brightest students to keep their academic ratings up. Such scholarships are based on academic achievement, so a "less well off" person can get in.

There's also a point of diminishing returns for students. You could pay $50k to get a degree in a top-20 rated state school, or $150k for an ivy-league; but the education in the ivy-league certainly wouldn't be 3 times better (and tons of companies will display interest in a person with a 3.5-4.0 GPA from the top-20 school).

Student choice forces universieites to compete against each other to attract students; this competition keeps the system in check. If all universities cost the same, there's no need for innovation, and no room to work with for attracting teahcers or building facilities...

That is why the cap exists, to force all universities to charge the same, and therefore allow people other than the well off a choice of university.

In the UK it could be choices are so severely limited that I'm not getting it... In the US choices are plentiful for any student quality and income bracket- and hard work pays off as a good job out of school regardless of tuition.

 

[JaredJames]

First, we're still talking about getting a degree from an accredited university, which means a better job than out of high-school. Even so, there are student loans if you want to go that route, in addition to the fact that private universities will also offer scholarships to the best and brightest students to keep their academic ratings up. Such scholarships are based on academic achievement, so a "less well off" person can get in.

This isn't the US, the scholarships here are few and far between and virtually impossible to get. I believe my university only has a few - with around 10,000+ students.

There's also a point of diminishing returns for students. You could pay $50k to get a degree in a top-20 rated state school, or $150k for an ivy-league; but the education in the ivy-league certainly wouldn't be 3 times better (and tons of companies will display interest in a person with a 3.5-4.0 GPA from the top-20 school).

As I stated previously, you'd be surprised at what a degree from a top UK uni can do for you. The moment people see Oxford or Cambridge in particular you are considered 'the best' even if you are utter crap.

Student choice forces universieites to compete against each other to attract students; this competition keeps the system in check. If all universities cost the same, there's no need for innovation, and no room to work with for attracting teahcers or building facilities...

On the contrary, if they all cost the same then they need to work harder to attract students. If unis charge different rates, cost then becomes a factor in the decision. If they all cost the same, you truly have the choice of any university, and can do so on the grounds of how the university standards are for your choice of course and only merit determines your entry.

 

[xxChrisxx]

For example:The median household income in the US is somewhere around $45,000. If you are at the median and get admitted to Harvard, you will get a 100% scholarship! I wouldn't describe that as utterly unattainable to all but the rich.

Well unfortunately for the above this thread isn't about harvard or any other US university is it? So let's face it its not really relevant.

Financial aid isn't available like that in the UK, because it was never needed before. The fees are a fundamental shift in how the higher education is funded over here.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

This isn't the US, the scholarships here are few and far between and virtually impossible to get. I believe my university only has a few - with around 10,000+ students.

Is that because they're state-owned and have limitations imposed on them?

As I stated previously, you'd be surprised at what a degree from a top UK uni can do for you. The moment people see Oxford or Cambridge in particular you are considered 'the best' even if you are utter crap.

I'm afraid I just can't 100% buy into your claim. Companies can't stay competitive if they're hiring "utter crap" from prestigious universities. I stand by my claim that a perfect 4.0 from Kingston is better than a C-student from Oxford.

On the contrary, if they all cost the same then they need to work harder to attract students.

What about the fact that tuition isn't the only source of funding? Do they accept donations from Alumni? You said you need to be rich to get into Cambridge or Oxford, is that because you need to make a significant "donation"? Is the tuition limit only for show?

If unis charge different rates, cost then becomes a factor in the decision. If they all cost the same, you truly have the choice of any university, and can do so on the grounds of how the university standards are for your choice of course and only merit determines your entry.

Choosing tuition and having the ability to offer incentives as they see fit seems to be working in the US...

 

[xxChrisxx]

I'm afraid I just can't 100% buy into your claim. Companies can't stay competitive if they're hiring "utter crap" from prestigious universities. I stand by my claim that a perfect 4.0 from Kingston is better than a C-student from Oxford.

Old boy network.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Old boy network.

Networking is just as important as grades when it comes to getting a job out of school. If you have good grades, good experience, and interview well you can get a good paying job no problem. I'm not saying you'll get rich, but you'll do well for yourself.

Companies have to stay competitive, and hiring friends with crappy grades from a presitigious university doesn't get them there. If they are doing this, I wouldn't want to work there anyway. Find a startup that wants innovative minds and hard work regardless of pedigree.

 

[JaredJames]

Is that because they're state-owned and have limitations imposed on them?

I don't know and unless someone has something showing otherwise I have no reason to believe this is the case.

I'm afraid I just can't 100% buy into your claim. Companies can't stay competitive if they're hiring "utter crap" from prestigious universities. I stand by my claim that a perfect 4.0 from Kingston is better than a C-student from Oxford.

For me this has been proven, as per my placement experience.

What about the fact that tuition isn't the only source of funding? Do they accept donations from Alumni? You said you need to be rich to get into Cambridge or Oxford, is that because you need to make a significant "donation"? Is the tuition limit only for show?

Please don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say you need to be rich to get into there (not at the moment) but that money helps those 'less able' rich people get into a good uni such as Oxford.

Choosing tuition and having the ability to offer incentives as they see fit seems to be working in the US...

And we're not the US and have a rather dissimilar system. So it isn't a straight "ooh we should do that here and it will work".

 

[xxChrisxx]

No I mean google 'old boy network'.

ItsLike normal networks, but on steroids. And does have a suspicious tendency to favour mediocre people who are 'one of us' over better people who arent. Sad but true.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I don't know and unless someone has something showing otherwise I have no reason to believe this is the case.

Then why are there apparently many more scholarship opportunities in the US?

For me this has been proven, as per my placement experience.

So, have you been able to get a job out of school? Do you want to also force companies to offer flat wages for certain positions, and ignore academic pedigree?

Please don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say you need to be rich to get into there (not at the moment) but that money helps those 'less able' rich people get into a good uni such as Oxford.

Please refer to post #52:

You'd be surprised what money can do for you when it comes to certain universities.

What did you mean by this? What constitutes a good university, and why isn't EVERYONE going to Oxford and Cambridge if they all cost the same? This is making less and less sense to me...

 

[Mech_Engineer]

No I mean google 'old boy network'.

ItsLike normal networks, but on steroids. And does have a suspicious tendency to favour mediocre people who are 'one of us' over better people who arent. Sad but true.

Sounds like a hold out from old-style aristocratic society. I say screw them.

 

[JaredJames]

Then why are there apparently many more scholarship opportunities in the US?

This has been covered previously. They weren't required.

Do you want to also force companies to offer flat wages for certain positions, and ignore academic pedigree?

What?

Please refer to post #52:

What about it? It says money can help you, not that you need to be rich to go there as you said in your post.

What did you mean by this? What constitutes a good university, and why isn't EVERYONE going to Oxford and Cambridge if they all cost the same? This is making less and less sense to me...

Academic standards, it's a lot harder to get into those universities than it is for others.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

This has been covered previously. They weren't required.

So what's wrong with implementing more now?

What?

I was trying to point out (perhaps a bit vaguely) that if capping a university's tuition to "level the playing field" is ok, it seems to me that limiting offered salaries for certain positions at companies is a similar action that would help "level the playing field." We wouldn't want rich companies to have their pick of the best and brightest students, it's not "fair" to the little companies.

What about it? It says money can help you, not that you need to be rich to go there as you said in your post.

Uh, how does money help you though? If all of the universities truly cost the same, money would be of no help at all...

Academic standards, it's a lot harder to get into those universities than it is for others.

This is true in either system of university funding. Is this "fair" to the students that have a nearly spotless academic record?

 

[mheslep]

Gokul: as I recall you have academic experience in both the US and the UK. Can you comment on the course load comparison?

 

[mheslep]

I have to say, that Harvard thing sounds quite good. It seems really well thought out (at least based on what is above).

Over the centuries Harvard has amassed a $27 billion endowment, the largest in the US and I suppose the world, from which it pays for things like scholarships (up many billions from the low it reached in the financial panic). I note at least some UK universities also have large endowments - Cambridge U is listed at £3.95 billion from which they no doubt supply tuition aid, as the UK government was never going to completely cover the cost of all those Dons and their kit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Cambridge
http://www.hmc.harvard.edu/

 

[Mathnomalous]

I still think the tuition hike is ultimately a good thing. It forces prospective students to assess their options more carefully; when a person has to financially cover the cost of a product or service, that person tends to be more careful before spending money on that product or service.

It also forces universities to operate more efficiently; if the quality of a university is determined by how successful its job placement services dept. is and how well prepared its students are, those universities will start reducing or eliminating useless services, programs, staff, etc.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I still think the tuition hike is ultimately a good thing. It forces prospective students to assess their options more carefully; when a person has to financially cover the cost of a product or service, that person tends to be more careful before spending money on that product or service.

You're definitely right about that, although leaving an arbitrary "limit" in place doesn't help. Universities should be able to charge what their services are worth, and value should be decided by supply and demand economics (not gov't bureaucrats).

It also forces universities to operate more efficiently; if the quality of a university is determined by how successful its job placement services dept. is and how well prepared its students are, those universities will start reducing or eliminating useless services, programs, staff, etc.

You're right that universities operating in a free economy would compete for students through efficiency and education quality (and charge a tuition which is determined by how much students are willing to pay for it); but with an arbitrary tuition cap in-place (which is lower than their tuition would otherwise be) universities end up all charging the same, and instead the supply is artifically limited by the government. Apparently what ends up happening in the case of an artificial tuition cap is instead of universities competing for students, students compete for universities...

 

[JaredJames]

You're right that universities operating in a free economy would compete for students through efficiency and education quality (and charge a tuition which is determined by how much students are willing to pay for it); but with an arbitrary tuition cap in-place (which is lower than their tuition would otherwise be) universities end up all charging the same, and instead the supply is artifically limited by the government. Apparently what ends up happening in the case of an artificial tuition cap is instead of universities competing for students, students compete for universities...

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me.

At the moment, there are students competing for universities. The universities take the best of the bunch. So to get to the best universities you need to be worthy of it, not by financial means, but by ability.

Why is this a bad thing?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me.

At the moment, there are students competing for universities. The universities take the best of the bunch. So to get to the best universities you need to be worthy of it, not by financial means, but by ability.

Why is this a bad thing?

Here's what I'm thinking- it could be good having prestigious universities selecting only the best and brightest students, if you're one of the best and brightest. If not, well you're stuck going to another school because they fill up way before they get down the list. This means you get universities with the best students (Oxford), and some universities that don't have any...

If instead students choose school based on a range of factors including price, the best and brightest are spread over a wider range of schools because each university will have its pros and cons. This gives more students the choice of top-ranked universities for their education (as long as they can afford it).

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul: as I recall you have academic experience in both the US and the UK.

Nope, not me. I have friends and family in Academia in the UK, but no first hand experience.

 

[xxChrisxx]

At the end of the day charging more or less for a place at university is irreverent if executed correctly as its just a shft of funding. This change however has been handled and implemented very poorly.

The main problem us that the effects of the change won't be felt for years after implementation. it doesn't persuade people to go and do a good degree and get a good job because you not only get hammered by higher rate tax but also increased loan repayments.

if you go and do a **** degree and never earn over 21k then you never pay back a penny of the 50 odd grand borrowed. Let's face it how many media studies students never repay their loans?

You've got me started now! the one upside from this is I can see apprenticeships coming back into fashion and this will kill off the crap universities. Both would be good for England.

The other rage inducing thing is that welsh and scottish home students won't pay increased fees but english students will.

 

[Kurdt]

The other rage inducing thing is that welsh and scottish home students won't pay increased fees but english students will.

And there's at least one Scottish Lib Dem MP that signed the no fees increase pledge that voted for the increase. Make of that what you will.

 

[JaredJames]

The other rage inducing thing is that welsh and scottish home students won't pay increased fees but english students will.

Well think how I feel. I'm Welsh and in uni in friggin' London.

 

[Jasongreat]

I really hope that the protesters were not students that considered themselves anarchists, or I would really doubt the universities abilities. Why would an anarchist riot for the government to force universities to keep tuition fees low? It is about as ironic as the french anarchists that were rioting in order to keep their government from raising the retirement age. If it was students from the university that considered themselves anarchists, I would say that the college sucks, how can an anarchist riot to get the government to force anything? If a person is an anarchist, wouldn't that mean that they think the government should do less? Europeans should really think things through a little more, before rioting, imo.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I suspect most of the people who caused trouble went there to do exactly that.

The protest could have been about anything.

 

[WhoWee]

It seems reasonable to me that Police make arrests of the worst offenders - then release details of their academic status. If these people are not students, then they might be - anything from over-zealous participants (minding their own business -just innocently walking down the sidewalk and simply joined in) to extreme terrorists.

I use the word terrorists because someone was calling for the Prince's head on a tape.

 

[JaredJames]

I think it's worth pointing out now that technically, most of these protesters aren't university students at the moment. They are 16 / 17 year olds who are looking to go to university in the future (these are the people the changes will affect).

 

[WhoWee]

I think it's worth pointing out now that technically, most of these protesters aren't university students at the moment. They are 16 / 17 year olds who are looking to go to university in the future (these are the people the changes will affect).

In that case, they should all be taken into custody (and let the parents pay for damages). I have 3 teens aged 16 to 18. My personal experience tells me (sober college bound) 16/17 year olds are not going to protest in the streets because of tuition increases - unless organized and worked into a frenzy by someone else.

I smell a stinker...

 

[JaredJames]

In that case, they should all be taken into custody (and let the parents pay for damages). I have 3 teens aged 16 to 18. My personal experience tells me (sober college bound) 16/17 year olds are not going to protest in the streets because of tuition increases - unless organized and worked into a frenzy by someone else.

I smell a stinker...

Two things to realize:

Tuition fee increases don't come into effect for 2 years - so these are the people it's going to affect. They have every right to protest.

I didn't say they were the ones reacting violently (although neither am I saying they're not).

What would be the purpose of current students (post 1st year) protesting these changes when they don't affect them? That's like a 70 year old protesting that they have raised the retirement age to 65 or a Scottish farmer protesting an additional runway at Heathrow.

I understand everyone has the right to protest if they don't like something, but I do see it as rather pointless when what you are protesting has little if anything to do with you / any effect on you.

 

[Kurdt]

You'll probably find a mix of students to be, current students and past students protesting on principal. 16/17 year olds are certainly capable of organising action. There were several sit ins of 6th forms and colleges during the protests as well. They aren't kids.

 

[mheslep]

The problem with this thread is that most of the people on this forum are American, and thus used to spending a ridiculous amount of money on education. In Europe, this is not the case and, in fact, in the UK most of the politicians making the decisions were able to go to university for free.

Well of course nothing is free over time. I don't think it is the case that the UK does not spend huge sums on Education; it's just that when they write their tax checks or pay the VAT at the pub they don't see the dedicated cut out for education, though of course it's there, last year in the amount of 80 billion pounds, about 12% of the total outlays for the country or ~1200 pounds per year for every head in the UK.

 

[JaredJames]

Well of course nothing is free over time. I don't think it is the case that the UK doesn't spend huge sums on Education; it's just that when they write their tax checks or pay the VAT at the pub they don't see the dedication for education, though of course it's there, last year in the amount of 80 billion pounds, about 12% of the total outlays for the country.

A problem I've noticed is with the costs themselves.

Each year, the tuition fee contributions (from the students) goes up around £100. Since I started it's gone from £3000 to nearly £3500. (The cap raises each year in line with these raises)

This is well beyond inflation, and given the course teaching and materials are identical each year I don't see how they can justify such a raise in costs.

Aside from claiming you give the lecturers a raise, why is there a need to raise costs so much and so consistently each year?

 

[mheslep]

A problem I've noticed is with the costs themselves.

Each year, the tuition fee contributions (from the students) goes up around £100. Since I started it's gone from £3000 to nearly £3500. (The cap raises each year in line with these raises)

This is well beyond inflation,

That 3% yearly rise is well beyond inflation?

 

[JaredJames]

That 3% yearly rise is well beyond inflation?

It is when inflation is dropping like a stone and nearing 0%.

(I accept the increases when inflation is around the same level.)

 

[Office_Shredder]

Aside from claiming you give the lecturers a raise, why is there a need to raise costs so much and so consistently each year?

Because the schools are underfunded as is and need to raise the cap by the maximum allowed by law in order to recoup as much of their losses on undergraduates as possible.

For example, this is from 2005 but the number haven't changed radically since then
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article506191.ece

Oxford’s paper, distributed to academics, calculated that the average undergraduate cost £18,600 per year to educate, but the university received only £9,500. It added: “The introduction of variable fees for home/EU undergraduates will make only a small dent in the loss per student.

 

[mugaliens]

Mugs, I'd point out that the Lib Dems were voted in because they promised to eradicate tuition fees amongst other things - they had a huge student backing.

They did a complete u-turn on this promise and now the fees are being tripled.

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?

This is one of the major factors in the violence.

No doubt! However, whose fault is that, really? Whenever you have a government of/by/for the people, it's ultimately the people's responsibility for whom they elect.

I'd also add that the government is spend £10 billion+ on the olympic games. If there was ever a project that could be cut to save money that should have been it, not going straight for students.

Naturally, as historically the Olympics has always been such an incredible money-maker...

What sort of country cuts monetary support for 16-19 year olds to remain in school for higher education and raises university tuition fee costs and causes thousands to be made redundant and then turns round and keeps the olympics and tries to bid on the world f****** cup. We need those like a hole in the head.

A country whose elected have lost touch with the needs of the people. Also, a country whose people keep electing these sorts time after time.

Sounds like a nice little rut going on over there. I feel for you, I really do, as we're by no means without some serious faults of our own.

 

[Mathnomalous]

It is when inflation is dropping like a stone and nearing 0%.

(I accept the increases when inflation is around the same level.)

Same problem here in the US. High tuition is primarily fueled by (non-dischargeable) student loans.

 

[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?