Can Labour pay for university fee cut?

This would certainly be a good move if you ask me! It's a win-win scenario if you think about it. Students, and people in general actually, struggle to decipher between the Labour and Conservative parties - so I think for Labour to potentially announce this commitment to students could be huge for them trying to win the youth vote. The policy would also save students £3,000 per academic year - and it can't be underestimated how much students would value a policy that protects their financial interests. I do wonder whether Labour would apply this policy to students currently paying £9,000 a year though.

Interesting news anyway! Thanks for sharing.

The Labour and Conservative are very different.. not too difficult to decipher between.

The Labour and Conservative are very different.. not too difficult to decipher between.

All these things were a product of the labour regime and I bet a million squillion borillion quid that if the conservatives could have scrapped the grants and any form of help for the less well off without any repercussions they would.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30976509

A member of the community just highlighted to me that Labour spoke about cutting uni fees by a third if they were voted in but it seems as of yet the sums haven't been made to add up.

If Labour get voted in, do you think uni fees will be cut or is it an empty promise?

Perhaps the bankers bonus tax. It's paid for 20 other things, it can surely pay for one more.

I do think they'll be cut if Ed gets in.

My view is that the current student loans system is basically unsustainable. The average student who studies for a 3 year undergraduate degree and borrows an average amount of maintenance loan (i.e. not the increased London rate) will need to earn £35,000 or more every year for 30 years in order to pay back what they've borrowed. This means no time out to have/look after children, no time unemployed or in a low wage job or having a sabbatical, no time out for injury or illness. I would not expect the majority of loans to get paid back in full. I know that real terms interest was introduced to combat this, but high earners will pay back their loans more quickly and may pay off extra lump sums. I don't think this is enough to make up the short fall in the current loan system.

Due to this, I think something will have to be changed. I'm not sure I'd rely on any political party to keep their promises, but any party which suggests that things can keep going as they are, and that the current funding system is fine are either misinformed or lying. The system does need to be changed.

Labours sums may not add up, but the sums surrounding the current system don't either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30976509

A member of the community just highlighted to me that Labour spoke about cutting uni fees by a third if they were voted in but it seems as of yet the sums haven't been made to add up.

If Labour get voted in, do you think uni fees will be cut or is it an empty promise?

Agreed but i don't think changing the amounts is the answer, the system needs wholesale reform.

I've not completely thought it through but i think a deposit and graduate tax system may be the answer. So fees would be largely uncapped within reason (have a rule saying fees can't rise by more than inflation) and you'd pay a deposit (for the poor, SF would pay this to the university) but provided you get a 2'2 then this deposit would be returned and you'd pay a graduate tax. If you drop out or fail then your liable for the debt under a similar system to now.

This system would take care of the fact that we don't want a million students suddenly turning up due to zero fees and it would to at least some degree make people have to think about whether they want to drop out early or whether they want to work for the degree while the graduate tax for the rest of your life would pay.

That does sound like a reasonable system up to a point. I do agree a complete re-think would be a good idea.

However, there are some issues with charging people what their degrees actually cost. Most STEM degrees (maybe excluding maths) cost considerably more to run than humanities and arts degrees. Many STEM subjects are already less popular, and if they were to cost more, it's another reason that might put people off from taking them, even though we need scientists and engineers in society. Perhaps some courses could also have a partial tax payer subsidy, as people taking these courses arguably benefits everyone.

I do agree if a graduate tax was introduced, there would need to be some method for dealing with people who fail or drop out at some point along the way.

However, I do think we also need some system to help people support themselves while at university to avoid students having to work long hours or thinking they can't afford to go. This could still be run using a loan system, as lower loans are much more likely to be paid off.

For such subjects i'm sure there could be some state support although with uncapped fees what you see in the US are huge scholarships and fee waivers so that's another possibility.

Well we'd probably keep the current loans and grants and just use the surplus from the graduate tax to cover that.

For such subjects i'm sure there could be some state support although with uncapped fees what you see in the US are huge scholarships and fee waivers so that's another possibility.

Well we'd probably keep the current loans and grants and just use the surplus from the graduate tax to cover that.

I don't think the US system is something we should really be aiming to emulate. It has a lot of its own issues. Also, the culture around university or college is very different there, and I don't think their system would work quite so well here.

I do think there should be some tax payer subsidy for universities from all tax payers. Very often, the presence of a university and students can benefit the local economy. Plymouth University is one of the biggest employers in Plymouth, as an example. I also think graduates *in general* do more to benefit society than non-graduates. For example, working in law is a graduate profession, and without lawyers we would not have a functioning legal system.

I think a lot of graduates would be unhappy to pay twice, once via a tax and once via a loan. A graduate tax could be used to introduced grants as well as support university courses.

The US system is not exactly much of an improvement, and not even better than the old system. The total weighted average fees are still around £11,500.

When i comment on the US i'd point out that they have the best university system in the world, a graduate tax would negate a lot of the issues while still allowing universities to do wonderful things with their money.