Considering a large chunk of them voted for the implementation of tuition fees in the first place I would say it is probably accurate...
Disabled Protestor Jody McIntyre in Shameful BBC Interview
- Thread starter lixxus
- Start date
Considering a large chunk of them voted for the implementation of tuition fees in the first place I would say it is probably accurate...
I think you rather overestimate the power of the student vote
They might shout the loudest, but they're a tiny percentage of the voting populus.
However you also seem to think that nobody in their right mind would be against this proposition of increased tuition fees, when in fact the majority of people involved seem to think it's a poor idea, that's the people that actually know about the potential affects it will have. As has been mentioned already it isn't something that strictly divides rich and poor, because actually the poor won't be much if any worse of from it, the rich will be hit hard but can afford that hit. It hits the middle the hardest, those just over the thresholds.
It is also something that seems to me inherently wrong, education should be open to all economic backgrounds, without severly hampering you in later life, and the only entrance criteria should be whether you meet the grade academically, not whether you can afford to go.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Exactly.
Anyway the media is not showing the whole picture so it is difficult to make an informed decision on what actually happened/who was at fault.
He made the choice to attend a demonstration - if he felt he was trully vulnerable he could have stayed at home or attended another demo such as a sit it.
That is a distinct possibility, also that the majority of those MP's who voted against did so because of ideological and political reasons rather than whether the proposals had merit or not.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
I think you rather overestimate the power of the student vote
They might shout the loudest, but they're a tiny percentage of the voting populous.
Agreed and they will have forgotten all about this "issue" by the next General Election...
The MP's would have been told how to vote.
you mean the same as why certain people voted in favour ?
I think you rather overestimate the power of the student vote
They might shout the loudest, but they're a tiny percentage of the voting populus.
However you also seem to think that nobody in their right mind would be against this proposition of increased tuition fees, when in fact the majority of people involved seem to think it's a poor idea, that's the people that actually know about the potential affects it will have. As has been mentioned already it isn't something that strictly divides rich and poor, because actually the poor won't be much if any worse of from it, the rich will be hit hard but can afford that hit. It hits the middle the hardest, those just over the thresholds.
It is also something that seems to me inherently wrong, education should be open to all economic backgrounds, without severly hampering you in later life, and the only entrance criteria should be whether you meet the grade academically, not whether you can afford to go.
Hence why I suggested it was speculation. I wouldn't say that they are a tiny percentage, there are many constituencies which hold a significant number of students. And whilst they haven't turned out in any significant numbers in the past they also haven't rallied (rioted?) like this in a long time either. I think it's fair to suggest that they could have considerable power.
The money side has been argued and discussed to death on these forums. We have people who have posted facts and figures and shown how it'll work. There is sufficient evidence to show that entry isn't being determined by money as people don't pay their fees up front. The only place that I feel we'll disagree on is our definition of "severely hampering you in later life". At the end of the day, education needs to be paid for (as academics won't work for free) and it needs investment, the hike in tuition fees are needed and do not severely hamper you in life if you take the opportunities available at university.
The LibDems were actually free to vote however they wished.
Which is why it was so significant that so many Conservative and Lib Dem MPs disobeyed their orders and voted the way their constituencies wanted. It's notable that it was Conservatives like David Davis, who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths, who are against the tuition fee increase.
I think they could either abstain or vote in favour according to the coalition agreement, there was no allowance for them to vote against the government. LibDem ministers had to vote in favour, and I think they all did.
Indeed, the point being that it belies your assertion that it was voted against out of any objection based on understanding alone.
In fact David Davis has been against tuition fees ever since their inception, in fact the Conservatives as a rule are also, unfortunately the alternatives are far worse. What David Davis advocates is closing a significant number of Universities and limiting places as to allow enough funding for a free system.
David Davis said:
The reality is that any MP can vote however they wish.
Sounds better, and more honest, than a system whereby university becomes reserved for the privileged.
Yes they can, but they are not free to do so because they will now face consequences for not voting with the whip.
So you approve of a system which limits universal access and would in effect be reserved for the privileged.
Do you really think that institutions such as Oxbridge, LSE and other Russell group universities would remain public if their funding was limited in such a way. They would most likely revert to private institutions and then you would have a two tier system.
I don't think many people here understand the very real alternatives and how much worse they would be.
Have we not already had this discussion on how the new proposals do not in any way create a system which benefits the wealthy over those from less privileged backgrounds.
If the fees were required 'upfront' then I would question them myself, but at point of access no fees are payable and the grants and bursaries available to those in need have increased not to mention how those earning the least on graduation will repay far less than they do currently.
If they have conviction the consequences should be immaterial.
Yeah Jody should be commended for standing up for what he believes in, oh wait... ^^
One would assume such a system would discriminate on academic ability rather than the proposed system's discrimination on ability to pay. It's not for you or I to second guess what individual universities would do in hypothetical situations. It is worth pointing out that so far, the most vociferous opposition to the government's plans have come out of the top Universities, in particular Cambridge and Imperial.
We've already had the discussion and it's clear that tuition fee increase massively benefits the privileged and a handful of the poorest students. I don't know how anyone could argue different, if everyone going to university had to take the loans out - essentially making it a graduate tax, I'd agree it would be an acceptable system. As it is however the privileged will just pay the tuition fees upfront, escaping a lifetime of debt and uncertainty.
Let's not forget that the government are scrapping EMA too, making it even more difficult for poorer children to stay in education after 16
You're just arguing for the sake of it now. They weren't free to vote against the tuition fees without breaking the coalition agreement.