I couldn't put it any better myself.

They could not have tuition fee rise but I see a few necessary changes:

Restrict funding to useful degrees, in the proportion needed ( no point in having 3000 sociologist, seriously)
Only let foreigners onto unpopular degrees or with extraordinary curriculum,
entry exams and tougher 1-2nd year exams with everybody getting funding for first year ( only fund students who want to work after 1st year)

Isn't Higher Education ridiculously cheap in France, because the government pays most of the cost?

For any decent degrees such as engineering or medecine it is also incredibly difficult to get into the free schools. Tuitions fees in other schools are very similar to the UK.

And I studied in the UK, and though I'm glad I did, I can still realised that it isnt fair that the british govt pays for unis where about 30% of the class is foreign.

Well as a European citizen you're entitled to the same discounted rate as everyone else; it's only non-EU students who pay the full costs. With that said I find it grossly unfair that all EU students get the same discounted rate in Scotland as Scottish students, but English and Welsh students miss out.

But surely you can see that it is not sustainable for the British govt to have to fund A LOT of european students in British unis. Esp. if there was british students good enough to make the class which got rejected.

I don't see why, after all I'd be entitled to the same funding as a French student would get should I choose to study in France?

That's the thing. Do you believe there are as many british students studying abroad that foreign students in the UK?

It depends. In France/Germany etc, possibly. In Estonia/Latvia/Bulgaria etc, Probably not.

That's true if you believe the published figures at the time. As we all know, it was also true for Greece on that basis. The real figures were much higher because Brown hid massive debts off the balance sheet. I don't know whether Ireland did that too, I would assume they did up to a point.

I've never really believed in the plan to cut spending by 25% though, I have no doubt that Osborne wants to do it, but it won't be possible, he'll be lucky to get 15%, realistically I bet he manages little more than half that. Angry students burning a couple of MacDonalds down don't matter much, but when you get a back bench revolt because you are cutting policing to the bone and rubbish isn't getting collected, that's when a chancellor has to rein in his ambitions.

I don't believe this tuition fee issue is as important as some suggest. If you cut pensions you will save far more cash, but people will die. Rising tuition fees should not be an issue for people who are looking at a degree to get a good job, nor should they dissuade those who are hoping to go on to teach. The cost is an investment that you only have to pay back if it pays off, being a student is therefore much like being a large bank - if you don't succeed the taxpayer foots the bill. Perhaps it should put a dent in media studies enrollments, or those rubbish alternative therapy courses, but neither is much of a loss.

The UK has probably more than £100 billion hidden off balance sheet, but they also have the assets that could come back on balance sheet as well.


I do agree that the cuts will get botched and I suspect that the next couple of years will see the coalition backtracking on the cuts. I suspect that once Ireland finally defaults in two years time (unless Ireland get another bailout), that the government will abandon austerity in a mad panic to get re-elected. If they do not I fear that the the UK could be facing a bail out in four years because of austerity.


The tuition fees are important to the long term viability to the nation. If higher education becomes a rigged race with only the rich being able to benefit through not having to take loans then the country will have a significant drop in graduates. Then it will impoverish a generation. I prefer means tested grants and tuition and with the tax payer accepting the bill as an investment in its people. If it means higher income tax rates to cover it then fine. There are far too many going to university anyway and they devalue the degrees overall. As it stands the so called pupil premium that a graduate earns as a result is falling. Soon it will be nothing with all the net gains being transferred to the loans company to gave you the student debt.

Interesting article from a University lecturer, one with which I completely agree:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/81 ... oblem.html

Having just seen the proposals have passed I should probably say:
Couldn't disagree more....
The Lib Dems may be the minority party in the coalition but in the end there is a requirement that the coalition forms a joint manifesto of sorts. How the Lib Dems came up with the idea that they could do the ONE thing they PLEDGED not to I dont know. In the coalition the Lib Dems have the oppurtunity to abstain from voting, they have promised the electorate that they would not increase tuition fees - therefore many students voted for them. If they back out of a pledge that they signed a statement to their electorate that they would follow then they should face diciplinary action and be subject to a bi-election in their area.

There is all this trash talk about how the fees will be 'fairer' and will actually cut costs for low income families, but every politician seems to miss the point. Students (of all ages) and future students feel betrayed by a party that they have voted for on the basis of them saying that they will most certainly NOT increase fees. How is it that any member of parliament (who fundamentally is meant to represent the electorate, using their personal discretion) can back out of a pledge such as this I dont know. People may say, oh its a coalition, there needs to compromises, but on a topic such as this, if people wanted the increases, they would have voted for them!!

All the Lib Dems have done with this idiotic move is create a generation of people who will never vote for the Lib Dems. Certainly I have every intention of opposing future Lib Dem election compaigining in whatever location I happen to be in, whenever it occurs. Why should anyone vote for a party based on their policies when they are quite happy to lie openly???

4chan?

If anyone has a well conceived idea for an on-line campaign, then just do it. It's easy to start - you tell everyone.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11935539

Anyone who knows, knows.

I heard "Coldblood" on the radio today. He sounded rather nervous, lol. I do appreciate the fact the BBC stated "Coldblood, who is not an official spokesperson for Anonymous" on their website. On the radio, they did not clarify that important fact. There is no official "spokesperson for Anon" - that would be oxymoronic