Ah, c'mon, they're no different in that regard to any of the other two main parties.

Sadly, that is all too true. All parties go back on their "promises".

It's time for a change.

Piccy????





He doesnt say if they get into power.. just in Parliament..

Probably said this before, but I'd vote for the party who was willing to make election manifestos legal and binding documents.

Like that's ever going to happen.

Labour's broken promises, from the Tory site - here.

And the Tories lied about taxation with great frequency - The Independent.

I have the feeling that what's gone on is that the LibDems have had to do a deal with the Tories for something else down the line, and the Tories are clearing the decks for the next election. Of course they don't want you voting Liberal, so they've crucified the party.

That was my rather despairing expectation when I first heard of the "alliance". I believe I may have actually used that very word "crucify".

They should raise fees even more to pay for the damage from the protests.

I agree as well.

University education is not a right but rather a privilege. Those that are decrying this as unfair are demanding that those on low wages who will never get to university pay for those who will.

The current model is not sustainable. The money that has been lavished on the universities has not helped people from poorer backgrounds and would have been much better spent on primary schools and apprenticeships.


It's not the ONE thing the party pledged at all. The LibDem manifesto was over 100 pages long and contained thousands of pledges.

The party system is not, was never supposed to be and has never been the way people seem to think it is now - several facts seem to have been lost in all this:

1. A manifesto is NOT a list of promises - it is a set of vision statements and policy pledges about where that party wishes to take the country.
2. No one individual policy is ever secure no matter how important - they are always individually vulnerable. However, as an entity, most of any party's manifesto doesn't tend to change very much at all.
3. No party ever forms, stays together or seeks election based on one policy - that would be silly.
4. There will always be members of any party who dissent from certain policies - party unity is a myth
5. Consequently, no voter should ever cast their choice based on one policy alone but rather on the manifesto as a whole.

This whole affair makes me very sad indeed for several reasons. There's my anger from seeing LibDem MPs go back on a promise that they stupidly signed seperately from their manifesto. There's the sadness that comes from realising that most voters don't understand how our parliamentary system operates. There's the sadness that comes from realising that most voters never actually queried what a party stood for before they voted. Then there's the sadness that comes from seeing a massive range of issues boiled down to one or two cheap headlines and people falling for it. But the biggest?

Chief amongst the things making me sad today is that some vastly more important things happened in the world today. Haiti, the Ivory Coast and the Sudan all have real election problems and proper violence yet things that affect poor people (especially black poor people) get little or no attention. Tensions are rising between two major nuclear powers yet we hear nothing about that.

Instead all we hear about are those issues that are going to directly affect the middle-class journalists or their friends.

Frankly it sickens me.

It's no different to people smashing up London during the poll tax riots.

If the Danes can afford taxpayer-funded Higher Education, so can we. If the French can, so can we.

It is very different indeed. The Community charge restricted a right - the right to vote.

Going to university is not a right. Going to university for free is not a right.

I would argue that education most certainly is a right, I believe every person on this planet should be entitled to free education. It's also of great benefit to the state - it gets a highly educated & skilled workforce in return for its money, not to mention that most graduates will pay more tax through higher salaries any way.

Basic education is a right. University is not basic education.

Not everybody can go to uni and nor should they.

Essentially though, nothing will change.

My University funding was thus:
1 years education @ £1,400 paid straight to the University by the Student Loans People
1 years education @ £3,000 paid straight to the University by the Student Loans People
1 years education @ £600 paid straight to the University by the Student Loans People (half-fees (Welsh) for Industrial Year)
1 years education @ £3,300 paid straight to the University by the Student Loans People
3 years maintenance @ £3,000/year paid to my bank account
1 years maintenance @ £600 paid to my bank account
I owe the government ~£26,000

If I were to go to University in the future then the following would likely happen:
1 years education @ £9,000 paid straight to the University by the Student Loans People
1 years education @ £9,000 paid straight to the University by the Student Loans People
1 years education @ £4,500 paid straight to the University by the Student Loans People (half-fees for Industrial Year)
1 years education @ £9,000 paid straight to the University by the Student Loans People
3 years maintenance @ £3,000/year paid to my bank account
1 years maintenance @ £600 paid to my bank account
I owe the government ~£26,000
I would owe the government ~£41,100

So I wouldn't pay any more out up front, I'd just pay more in the long run.

I don't think it's fair, but I guess it's not affecting anyone right now...
Would the University do anything better for me? Probably not because I'm funding the cut from the Government...
The Government would still loose the money in the short term as I don't have ~£12,000/year in my pocket to give the University and survive...And then there is no guarantee I'll get a job, even then one that pays £21k+/year...

I would agree with that.

I also think courses that produce graduates that are needed by the country, generally scientists, engineers and the like should be fully funded. These course can change if there is a need in society for them. Only those of ability should have the right, if they wish, to go.

However, I don't agree that the correct way to deal with the numbers wishing to go to University, which is what the problem boils down to really, is by pricing many out of the system. On the one hand the Government wants to deter people getting into debt and on the other they want people to get even more heavily in debt by improving themselves.

If all the MPs who voted for this feel that it is so right why don't they offer to pay what they received for free into the system? It would be a gesture but it's not going to happen.

My funding was thus:

1 years education @ £1,025 paid straight to the University by my single mum before I could start the course
1 years education @ £1,075 paid straight to the University by my single mum before I could start the course
1 years education @ £1,075 paid straight to the University by my single mum before I could start the course
1 years education @ £1,075 paid straight to the University by my single mum before I could start the course
3 years maintenance @ £1,700/year paid to my bank account in 3 installments by the SLC
1 years tuition maintenance @ £1025/year paid to my bank account in 3 installments by the SLC after the fees were due
3 years tuition maintenance @ £1075/year paid to my bank account in 3 installments by the SLC after the fees were due
£500 emergency loan extension available per year.

I owe the SLC ~£14k
I owe the bank £3000

Labour made my single mum pay up front before I could even start the course. AFA I am concerned, Labour can f*** off.