Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#1
Today's news sees a number of universaties charging the full £9,000
simon highes on TV today saying uni's should only charge £6,000 the figure set and can only charge the extra £3000 if the uni has a good case, but already uni's are charging top wack.
s hughes is saying the extra £3000 is not guarenteed but when pressed on who could stop the uni's from charging £9000 he stumbled.
interesting end to the interview when the prresenter asked simon if he still supports what is supposaed to be lib dem policy of scrapping these fees altogether.
he said he has always agreed with this policy.
so the govt is pushing the fees throiugh
s hughes is a leading light in the govt and against the proposal
he's playing a dangerous game, but the presenter said how will your electorate feel on your govt's view on charging fee's
s hughes said well if the electorate don't like it they will vote me out
those are likely to be famous last words
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
interesting stuff keith, the issue of university fees is covered also in post 3 on "the last question time today" thread.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#3
Looks like no one can stop the uni's charging £9000
let's watch s hughes bermonsey seat already marginal
but don't think to many lib dems will survive general election
clegg could be a big causaulty
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#4
mmmmm the ironic thing is that the report on which this fee hike was based, the Browne Report, was commissioned by Labour and I would bet any money that Labour (who introduced the fees in the first place) would do the same thing....
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#5
BARRYW
Change the record!!!!!!!!!!!
I dont give 2 hoots who introsced it
most important is let's see the damage this will do at the next general
but sadly it's the students who lose out
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#6
Interesting situation- the idea was Labour's, it is being introduced by the Tories, together with the Libs who have swapped their opposition to it for a chance to govern. Where do UKIP stand on uni fees, Vic?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
We know Keith hates being reminded of Labour's complicity in certain things and their incompetence in others. Thats your only defence is it not Keith - trying to stop the discussion of how we got to where we are now...
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#8
Whilst understanding how we got to where we are is often helpful surely it is more important to focus on how do we get from here to where we want to be?
Of course this prevents the scoring of political points and the rubbing of salt in wounds.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#9
BAZ;
You will find im critical of all parties including labour and i don't give two hoots who introduced the propoisals
we now have a cobbled together govt that can decide to scrap the fee's but they have chosen not to.
in fact they are as good as encouraging the fee's
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#10
I worked at the University of Kent for 35 years and both my children went to uni in the 90s so I have seen the changes over the years from both sides.
Until the late 90s there were about 50 universities and a few polytechnics teaching degrees, with no tuition fees for home students and a means tested grant from county councils, all of which were affordable from public finances.
Then Tony Blair decided 50% of the population should go on to higher education even though less than 50% of the population can benefit from a university education and a degree is not needed for 50% of the jobs going. This level of students is unaffordable from public finances so fees have to be introduced at the levels we're seeing now.
The answer is to reduce the number of undergraduates but that is going to be difficult to implement from above - my feeling is that the natural laws of supply and demand will come into play. Potential students will bring about the reduction themselves by going straight into work in increasing numbers to avoid debt they don't want for a qualification that is no use to them.
Hopefully the hole will be filled by a lot more apprenticeships and on-the-job education of the ONC|/HNC type.