Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

David Cameron - "Before protesting, students need to get the facts straight." Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broderss)
    May want to think again on that.

    And it is well known the Conservatives know nothing of economics. They ignore all the advice from Economics experts and proceed to do their own thing, which they have done before. They will destroy this country further.

    PS I'm actually 19 :fyi:
    Agreed
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krebs)
    Have you heard of Greece and Ireland?
    Did you hear that Ireland didn't have a deficit problem?

    It had a banking problem. There's a difference.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by master roflcopter)
    But these are the people who will be affected in a couple of years, depending on their age. As far as I'm concerned they have the right to protest and i don't think you're giving them enough credit; I personally wouldn't go out of my to protest unless I knew what I was talking about, and I bet a lot of them are the same. Them being Year 9, 10 or 11 has absolutely nothing to do with it. You'll always get people who do jump on the bandwagon and like to cause trouble, but there's no reason to suggest that the majority of people protesting are like that.

    Also, I'd like to point out that Cameron makes some ridiculous points in that article, for instance

    "Unlike our predecessors we won't patronise the public by pretending there's a bottomless pit of money we can dig into" - I fail to see how this was ever the case. Labour never tried to say that, and frankly you'd have to be an idiot to ever pretend that.

    "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."
    This will not be the case as far as I am concerned. The education system will simply become more like that in America, where it is a 'marketplace'. In other words, better degrees from better universities will cost more and people will have to make a choice between a worse degree and higher debt. Once fees are increased once, the only way is up. So, maybe it will be fine off initially, but if fees were to go up in the future, the quality of higher education will suffer, in my opinion
    I didn't accuse them of being clueless to the situation nor did I state that I didn't think they had the right to protest. My post was not an opinion it was simply about an observation I and some other sixth formers made on our way to French.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I do not like the man, but I agree with Cameron on this 100%.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onyx.)
    I didn't accuse them of being clueless to the situation nor did I state that I didn't think they had the right to protest. My post was not an opinion it was simply about an observation I and some other sixth formers made on our way to French.
    Didn't say you thought they were clueless, but your post implied that they might be jumping on the bandwagon, and i just don't think you can question that without actually knowing them and why they were there.

    Actually, something I've noticed in the media lately is that when younger people protest they're generally looked on as though they're just going along with everyone else, as though because it will only affect them in a few years they shouldn't have an opinion. Needless to say, I completely disagree.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by master roflcopter)
    Didn't say you thought they were clueless, but your post implied that they might be jumping on the bandwagon, and i just don't think you can question that without actually knowing them and why they were there.

    Actually, something I've noticed in the media lately is that when younger people protest they're generally looked on as though they're just going along with everyone else, as though because it will only affect them in a few years they shouldn't have an opinion. Needless to say, I completely disagree.
    I think you're reading into this a little too much. It seems you're disagreeing with an opinion I never gave.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TedleyBear)
    Yes but to youre statement Bill about ema, fair enough people shouldnt be going just for incentives of EMA etc. BUT, cutting ema will cause alot of the lower class students to stop going to college, which then leads to alot of them becoming lazy and bed ridden, possibly resulting to all sorts of crime. Police numbers are down so it will be easier for them to make money since there is no college, no jobs and cuts of benefits and being forced to do community jobs or whatever if its been passed

    Id say its the perfect time for criminals, especially if people have no incentive to do things. If theres no college and hardlys any apprenticeships, you need to be offering students' incentives or they are going to resort to crime, especially when the people and UK generally is getting more poorer
    I talked to my mum about this, she comes from a poor background and did a course with open university while she worked. She says that bribing kids to go to school after the age of 16 is counter productive, when she was that age (in the 70's) the standard of living was much lower but kids who were academic enough went to further education college to do 'A' levels and everyone else left and looked for jobs. No matter how menial, because if you work hard enough and prove yourself then you progress. Kid these days want all the rights with no responsibility is how she sees it. Once kids who have been bribed leave school, do we then bribe them to go to uni? To study and get a good degree takes a lot of hard work and you need a lot of motivation which comes from within and not from bribery. Drop out rates are quite high at a lot of universities could this be why?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    Sadly, this is extremely true. If Labour were in power, they would have done exactly the same damn thing, and we would have heard barely a whimper of protest. Now I'm no defender of the Tories, but it has to be admitted that half of the protesters clearly just see the proposed fee increase as a convenient excuse to riot against the posh evil tories. If it hadn't been the fees, it would have been something else sooner or later.
    Agreed, Labour in fact did introduce tuition fees in the first place after promising before the election not to. Then they promised before another election that they wouldn't increase them and they did. They commissioned the Browne report because they realised the state couldn't afford to go on paying so much towards university education and they refused to publish it before the election. No one protested when they broke their promises and if they had won the election they would be cutting too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If what DC says is true - and a few think tanks have said he's misunderstood the state of the economy and that the cuts are therefore too severe - how come he has £7bn to bail out Irish banks with? Most Politicians today are liars. Is he a liar? Well...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blondshavemorefun)
    Agreed, Labour in fact did introduce tuition fees in the first place after promising before the election not to. Then they promised before another election that they wouldn't increase them and they did. They commissioned the Browne report because they realised the state couldn't afford to go on paying so much towards university education and they refused to publish it before the election. No one protested when they broke their promises and if they had won the election they would be cutting too.
    You might be right, but did loads of students vote for Labour on the back of those promises? In the answer lies the reason for the difference in reactions by students, might I suggest?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kninja)
    You might be right, but did loads of students vote for Labour on the back of those promises? In the answer lies the reason for the difference in reactions by students, might I suggest?
    I can only assume that they did, because no one wants to pay for something if they don't have to.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    will all due respect to David Cameron i believe i know more about my own financial and uni fees situation than him
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What David Cameron is basically say is that if we actually understood the proposals we wouldn't be protesting. What an arrogant, naive and pompous view to take. All Ministers are toeing this line, why can't they actually just debate the issue properly instead of casting off students opinions as uninformed? I would assure any Tory minister that I fully understand the proposals, I just think they're crap.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flob)
    As far as I know, that second part isn't really correct, as the money from fees will actually be replacing the withdrawal of direct funding by the government. Indeed, if a university were to charge £9000 then the expectation would be that their funding might well be increased.
    Wouldn't that only be if they got a certain number of low income people in and met certain other targets? I dunno but as a general statement I mean.

    Oh and I just threw in 3x more because most students are tending to believe its going to be 3x more, they are not aware that some universities will be as low as 6 which is only double and really not that bad with the higher threshold before you start paying.

    I mean tbh my main problem with the actual increase (i dont have any but if i had to choose, disregarding my last point that is) it would be the sheer barrier of debt that would hit you when leaving university. I mean I know it isn't like proper debt but I wouldn't like the idea of owing more money than I own in posessions :/.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by TedleyBear)
    Yes but to youre statement Bill about ema, fair enough people shouldnt be going just for incentives of EMA etc. BUT, cutting ema will cause alot of the lower class students to stop going to college, which then leads to alot of them becoming lazy and bed ridden, possibly resulting to all sorts of crime. Police numbers are down so it will be easier for them to make money since there is no college, no jobs and cuts of benefits and being forced to do community jobs or whatever if its been passed

    Id say its the perfect time for criminals, especially if people have no incentive to do things. If theres no college and hardlys any apprenticeships, you need to be offering students' incentives or they are going to resort to crime, especially when the people and UK generally is getting more poorer

    Note we're going to be entering the generation of 18 years being the Education Leaving age - so incentives or not there will be a requirement on students to go.
    Offline

    13
    I wish Clegg would shut up about the raising of the payback amount going up to £21k. Yep thats a 40% increase - The government though are putting a 273% hike on fees.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brevity)
    Did you hear that Ireland didn't have a deficit problem?

    It had a banking problem. There's a difference.
    And the government promised to absorb losses from their banks and found out it couldn't afford to.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    David Cameron can kiss my ass and Nick Clegg can go to ****ing hell, lying scum bag.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krebs)
    And the government promised to absorb losses from their banks and found out it couldn't afford to.
    Of course; but the original point is that it isn't necessary to cut the deficit—which is an economically defensible position. Ireland is an example were budgetary prudence didn't save them from economic woe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blondshavemorefun)
    I talked to my mum about this, she comes from a poor background and did a course with open university while she worked. She says that bribing kids to go to school after the age of 16 is counter productive, when she was that age (in the 70's) the standard of living was much lower but kids who were academic enough went to further education college to do 'A' levels and everyone else left and looked for jobs. No matter how menial, because if you work hard enough and prove yourself then you progress. Kid these days want all the rights with no responsibility is how she sees it. Once kids who have been bribed leave school, do we then bribe them to go to uni? To study and get a good degree takes a lot of hard work and you need a lot of motivation which comes from within and not from bribery. Drop out rates are quite high at a lot of universities could this be why?
    Meh no one cares what your mum thinks, she's old! If you think more people are dropping out enough, then what about all the prospective universities students that won't go because of the hike in fees, or the school leavers that won't go to further education who are from poor backgrounds. Remember back in 1921 when your mum was in university there was not that high rent, most of the stuff was proportionate, not anymore.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 18, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.