Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SFsucks)
    Nick Clegg gave David Cameron and his party tuition fee rises to them on a silver plate
    Not true. Do you think half of the positive reforms for low-income students would be there without the Liberal influence?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree hugely that their policies are good. They have a few OK ones, but mostly it's utter tosh.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    Not true. Do you think half of the positive reforms for low-income students would be there without the Liberal influence?
    Probably not
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    It frustrates me how well-educated young students think politics is nothing more than tuition fees.

    There are going to be cuts and it seems more and more, especially with council cuts, that vulnerable people who rely on services are going to lose them.

    As one example of many, Leeds City Council have decided to close Leeds Crisis Centre, a centre that deals in mental health. Mental health services are used by a small vulnerable minority. The users of this service will not be able to cause havoc in central London or monopolise the front pages of British newspapers the day after. They do not have the media or political voice to pressure the government.

    Well-heeled graduates earning over a certain threshold can quite easily afford to retrospectively pay for their higher education. Free tuition is essentially a middle class benefit, akin to New Labour handing out child benefit to the well-off.

    I voted Liberal and I'm glad Nick was sensible enough to break this pledge. It should hopefully take some of the burden of cuts off less fashionable budget spending.

    On a side point, MPs usually sign hundreds of pledges a year, and often break them. An MP 'pledge' isn't quite as sacrosanct as some posters here are making out.
    I would have voted Liberal at the last GE (I was just a few days too young unfortunately), and I will be voting Liberal for the foreseeable future.

    I agree with you on almost all your points, I do however wish the rise in tuition fees (and cut to the universities budget) had not been as high as it was. A more reasonable balance between the two would have been far better for the longer term competitiveness and standard of eduction in the UK.
    I've said this a few times, I just hope the Gov't follows through on the promise to keep HE open to poorer students (e.g. through bursaries and other aid). The consequences could be fairly bad if they don't.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    It frustrates me how well-educated young students think politics is nothing more than tuition fees.

    There are going to be cuts and it seems more and more, especially with council cuts, that vulnerable people who rely on services are going to lose them.

    As one example of many, Leeds City Council have decided to close Leeds Crisis Centre, a centre that deals in mental health. Mental health services are used by a small vulnerable minority. The users of this service will not be able to cause havoc in central London or monopolise the front pages of British newspapers the day after. They do not have the media or political voice to pressure the government.

    Well-heeled graduates earning over a certain threshold can quite easily afford to retrospectively pay for their higher education. Free tuition is essentially a middle class benefit, akin to New Labour handing out child benefit to the well-off.

    I voted Liberal and I'm glad Nick was sensible enough to break this pledge. It should hopefully take some of the burden of cuts off less fashionable budget spending.

    On a side point, MPs usually sign hundreds of pledges a year, and often break them. An MP 'pledge' isn't quite as sacrosanct as some posters here are making out.
    Raising the Student Fees won't solve any of our budget problems. For one, the Student Loans mean that you won't start seeing any of that money back for three years so it's still a similar amount of money and even then (under the current system) it's predicted by Cleggy Weggy in his defence of the rise 30% will never even begin to pay back their student fee before it's written off and on top of that only a 1/3 will pay back in full. I don't see raising the threshold, lowering the age when it's written off and raising the amount to be paid helping things in this regard. I'm not against graduate contributions as such, merely the stupid way this rise has been done.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There's making compromises in a coalition and then there's making a total u-turn on what your party believes in and what your voters voted for. That's why people are pissed at the Lib Dems.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)





    Doesn't say 'Only if we win', does it?
    I don't think it could be any clearer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    I don't think it could be any clearer.
    Reading that still mean Clegg should be still voting against any increase and seeing before the general election tuition fee scraping is one of there front line policys I can't see why the plage should be in any way broken. What is your RESPONSE JW92 to that?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SFsucks)
    on the fact that Nick Clegg didn't really lie seeing if it was only if they got in with a majority.
    But the pledge / promise wasn't only if they got in on a majority. It was to vote against any increase in the next parliament, full stop. No proviso about being in power, or having a majority, or whatever.

    (Original post by JW92)
    I voted Liberal and I'm glad Nick was sensible enough to break this pledge. It should hopefully take some of the burden of cuts off less fashionable budget spending.
    Not going to happen because this system will probably cost MORE than the previous system (if universities on average charge more than what the government expect - which looks like what is going to happen)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But the pledge / promise wasn't only if they got in on a majority. It was to vote against any increase in the next parliament, full stop. No proviso about being in power, or having a majority, or whatever.
    I did reread the pledge and yes you are right there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why did Nick Clegg cross the road?
    Because he said he wouldn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I still think it was terrible how he betrayed his voters and supporters. It seems like they are now standing up for everything that they were strongly against in the past. I am Conservative, and I'd be angry if the Cons all of a sudden betrayed all their voters and supporters to an unbelievable extent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samwest1992)
    I still think it was terrible how he betrayed his voters and supporters. It seems like they are now standing up for everything that they were strongly against in the past. I am Conservative, and I'd be angry if the Cons all of a sudden betrayed all their voters and supporters to an unbelievable extent.
    Cons dont need to compromise anything, they won 5times more seats than the lib dems. The cabinet is a Conservative major government, not a ConDem 50-50 like most people think.

    And why conservatives may I ask, 20% VAT wasnt on their manifesto. Cameron is great at PMQ and public speaking but there is no doubt his cuts are crazy.

    Man utd have 600million debt but that doesnt mean we start cutting player salaries, stop investing in young players ect. Ok we wont sign 80million players but we wont cut aimlessly
    Similarly, UK is in a bad situation but that doesnt mean that stop spending, just not so much. Cutting at such a speed is defo risky, why not cut it at a slightly slower pace
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nasira372)
    Cons dont need to compromise anything, they won 5times more seats than the lib dems. The cabinet is a Conservative major government, not a ConDem 50-50 like most people think.

    And why conservatives may I ask, 20% VAT wasnt on their manifesto. Cameron is great at PMQ and public speaking but there is no doubt his cuts are crazy.

    Man utd have 600million debt but that doesnt mean we start cutting player salaries, stop investing in young players ect. Ok we wont sign 80million players but we wont cut aimlessly
    Similarly, UK is in a bad situation but that doesnt mean that stop spending, just not so much. Cutting at such a speed is defo risky, why not cut it at a slightly slower pace
    I didn't mention anything abour compromise. That is a different story.

    I'm not all that happy at the moment too with what the government is doing economically. Cutting is one way of reducing the deficit, but the main problem I have is how they are raising taxes and other costs, such as the VAT you said. I looked at their recent budget, and there were so much tax raises. Not just that, but they were spending and putting more money into lots of other new areas. It is all a bit confusing. Basically, if they are BOTH highly taxing and cutting spending, then that will of course make people poorer. The cuts wouldn't be as bad if they lowered taxes, or because it would be more suitable to cut the deficit, to just keep taxes the same. To be honest, I am just as annoyed as you are.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samwest1992)
    I didn't mention anything abour compromise. That is a different story.

    I'm not all that happy at the moment too with what the government is doing economically. Cutting is one way of reducing the deficit, but the main problem I have is how they are raising taxes and other costs, such as the VAT you said. I looked at their recent budget, and there were so much tax raises. Not just that, but they were spending and putting more money into lots of other new areas. It is all a bit confusing. Basically, if they are BOTH highly taxing and cutting spending, then that will of course make people poorer. The cuts wouldn't be as bad if they lowered taxes, or because it would be more suitable to cut the deficit, to just keep taxes the same. To be honest, I am just as annoyed as you are.
    yes I agree with you totally.
    Labour didn't want to cut, tory doing it too fast. Lib dems having to change their policies in order to cling onto power. They are all as bad as each other. Having said all this, I would probably still vote lib dem purely because although they ****ed up, they still have a long way to go to match labour and tory. Or as someone suggested before....we could start our own party lool
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: April 2, 2011
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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