This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Top Up Bill through

I dunno to be honest this is an endless argument, i think ideally noone should have to pay to finish their education (up to whatever standard they want). Though an 'educated' population hmmm, could argue upon that statement! Yes we need those who you previously mentioned, but to the extent whereby we are overrun by too many 'educated' people and not enough jobs. I think many people choose to do degrees when sometimes they are actually unnecessary.

Anyway, we need less educated people to do more practical jobs - where would the country be without garbage collectors, traffic wardens, sales assistants etc. These are lower paid people who do JUST as important jobs as those highly educated as society would fall apart without them!! Its these types of people who i feel the raise in taxes is unfair for, as yes they will use a doctor in their lifetime, but is is really their obligation to pay for a doctor's education? Especially since a doctor will usually earn a considerably high wage and have higher respect from the public.

p.s.We already have to pay for alevels anyway just not to the same huge extent of uni ed!!!

Reply 41

Peapod

It seems ridiculous to me that this voting is not anonymous.
I am sure if it was that this would not have been the outcome.
But if you have Tony Blair's mob taking down names then how can it ever be a fair vote?

I personally feel that even if MPs were FOR tuition fees they should have voted AGAINST as this bill is a mess- poorly strung together with nonsensical concessions and illogical laws. They should have left it, thought about it more and readdressed the situation.

As for the fact that students are being punished for parents incomes even more than they already are this is just disgraceful.

Didn't Mr Blair promise not to introduce these?

We can only hope the House of Lords rejects it - what are the chances of this?

Reply 42

emporium

I support the top-up-fees under current circumstances, that is nearly 50% (and rising each year) go on to higher education, unis can't afford to pay for all these courses any more, and a grand a year from students isn't nearly enough to curb the deficit, that's the fact. If the gov. is determined to send 50%+ to uni, they have to either raise taxes or increase fees. The former way (the Lib Dem way) is completely unfair on people / parents who will not / have not/ don't have children going to uni. Charging fees imo in the only fair way, besides we've still got it easy compared to the US, courses at universities there can cost $20,000 per year or more. The fees won't be an extra financial burden on parents, on the contrary in fact, seen as they will go from paying £1,100 per year to £0. Sure the parents will probably pay off some of the debt afterwards, however, under the previous system, parents only payed fees if they collectively (or singularly) earned £20,000+ per year, under the new system, the same rule applies still but only if the graduate also earns £15,000+ per year, and at that wage, the weekly contribution is bugger all! Therefore the level of finantial stability that is required for paying off the debt is greater under the new system. But as I said, this is only the solution (imo) under the current circumstances, because.....
...personally I think the answer is to remove the bottom 20% or so of shit pointless money wasting courses that bring in no money to the unis through reseach etc., we don't need 50% going to uni anyway, well less than half of the jobs in the country require a degree anyway, and students doing such courses would have these large debts and a low income to pay them off, because such degrees would be next-to useless. This would ease the financial deficit of unis and would mean no top-up-fees! Best solution in my opinion.

Reply 43

Peapod

emporium

The former way (the Lib Dem way) is completely unfair on people / parents who will not / have not/ don't have children going to uni.
.

Hmm but if these people were to get ill they would go to a doctor who would have had to pay for education.
And you could say well they're well paid at the end of the degree, but they're not particularly and these people could be earning much more.

Reply 44

cobra

14

Peapod

It seems ridiculous to me that this voting is not anonymous.
I am sure if it was that this would not have been the outcome.
But if you have Tony Blair's mob taking down names then how can it ever be a fair vote?

I personally feel that even if MPs were FOR tuition fees they should have voted AGAINST as this bill is a mess- poorly strung together with nonsensical concessions and illogical laws. They should have left it, thought about it more and readdressed the situation.

As for the fact that students are being punished for parents incomes even more than they already are this is just disgraceful.

Didn't Mr Blair promise not to introduce these?

We can only hope the House of Lords rejects it - what are the chances of this?

No, he promised no to intoroduce top up fees not, not to increase tuition fees.

the house of lords is very hard to predict.

Also it is partly due to pointless degrees, that only increase employability because everybody else has one so you need one, that universities need more money if th govenment encourgaed those just those who really needed to go to university then there would be less people and they would have to pay less.

Reply 45

androidkiller

Why is so little fuss being made about how unfair this policiy is to students from middle-class families (like so many of New Labours policies)?

Someone who comes from a richer family than me is more likely to be able to afford to support their child so they could have a lower debt.

Someone who comes from a family poor enough to get Government help will not only get buirsaries to help [pay their costs but will have money knocked off the fees, so when they come to pay them back and earn as much as the other graduates they have less to pay off.

But someone in the middle gets stuck with a huge debt.

And what happens if the better off parents refuse to support them, what happens then - they won't get bursaries or anything.

So it sounds good in principle, but the execution is garbage.

Why don't the MPs who voted for this proposal pay back with interest the costs of their "free" uni education + grants?

Hypocrites.

Reply 46

greenie787

kildare

No, people starting uni in 2004 or 2005 will not be affected.

so if you are starting in Sept 2005 are you effected and do you have to pay them for the other two years in the course? most courses are three years long, so does it still effect you then?

Reply 47

kildare

8

greenie787

so if you are starting in Sept 2005 are you effected and do you have to pay them for the other two years in the course? most courses are three years long, so does it still effect you then?

No, it doesn't.

Reply 48

chimp_spanner

I'm dissapointed. Not nessacarily because of what the bill entails, although I'm against that as well. But it's the fact that our government; our "supposed" elected representitives had a chance to make a stand, and speak for the people, and prove that Tony Blair isn't the President of England he'd like to think he is. But as usual, massive opposition soon dwindles to a minority come crunch time, and another bill, another proposal that the MAJORITY (an important concept in democracy) dissaprove of, is bulldozed through. What does this tell people our age about the way our country is run?

And with regards to the bill itself - well I haven't read enough to know exactly what it's all about. I know it means alot of students are going to end up a hell of alot worse off. And from what I gather, it's going to introduce a system of "competitive" fee structuring amongst Uni's. Which is bound to upset the distribution of students, and which courses they take and yadayada.

I dunno I think what's annoyed me MOST through all of this is the way Blair can stand up there and basically say, "by allowing Uni's to charge more, students will be better off". That's like me holding a red pen, looking you square in the face and saying "it's blue" lol

Ahh I could rant forever. But yeah that's my disjointed unstructured opinion on it.

Reply 49

elpaw

15

Im surprised there are so many people here who are opposed to the fees and then they turn around saying that they haven't got a clue what they mean. you should read the facts before commenting, otherwise you are seen as only opposing the fees because you don;t like blair.

Reply 50

Sire

10

rahaydenuk

Perhaps if people like the NUS weren't so nieave and adamant that they don't want fees, full stop, there might have been more likelihood of getting something fairer. The campaign so far seems to have stunk of the hard-left who think everything should be free and everyone should go to university. That is not the case. Since when has tertiary education been a right? SInce never. Next thing people will be demanding an above-average salary as a right. :rolleyes:

I see your point and agree. Though it should not be a right to have a tertiary ecducation, but everyone should have the right to attempt attaining one. If that makes sense. The marks would be the privilege (sp) decider. Thus the tertiary education isn't a right, just something that a dedicated person has the right to attempt. Hmm I'm confusing myself now.

Reply 51

musicbloke

17

New labour are a load of money fuelled spineless c**ts. I was outside parliament last night and it was terrible. who was paying those guys to change sides at the last minute. On the other hand the whole situation proves Blairs consistancy in breaking every policy put forward in the manifesto.

Musicboy

Reply 52

claire1985

Tek

316 to 311.

Blair should be f**king hung, drawn and quartered.

Can i just point out, there is still a third reading of the bill. There is no good moaning about it and accepting the 'inevitable'- we have another chance to lobby our MPs; go on protests and win the ex rebels around again. So don't moan, do something about it! I believe we owe it to the students who are 2 yrs younger than us to fight for their right to higher education at a reasonable price. By the way, did anyone see the Lib Dem speech on what their policy is, i think it's a much better idea:
1. Scrap the stupid 50% target
2. Put a higher band of income tax for those earning over £100k to pay for free education and maintenance grants
By using this principle, the universities would get funding in 2005, not the inadequate £1bn by 2006 and have to wait until 2010 until top-up fees get raised again.

Top Up Bill through

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you