Section 10: The Parliamentary Vote
Because of the haste with which these fees were brought in the White Paper was not published at the time of the vote. As a result of this MPs voted for a rather different policy from the one this has evolved into.
The following were 'unknowns' or have changed since the vote:
1. The debate did not suggest that MPs really understood the advantages of a loan repayment to the most wealthy and the financial gamble many lower earners will have to take. Perhaps they still don't.
2The £100,000 graduate gain used to argue for fees is not a valid figure – it overlooks the impact of loan repayments on net income and will also be irrelevant to a significant proportion of graduates.
3. It was believed only a small number of institutions would adopt the maximum £9,000 fee.
4. The situation regarding the redistribution of fees (in practice, students' borrowing against unknown future income) for widened access was unclear.
5. That the Scottish and Welsh would set up such different systems and leave English students at such a disadvantage within the union.
6. The difficulties of setting up fair penalties to prevent the very wealthy buying out of the system
7. In the absence of a White Paper, there was no fine detail on interest and payback.
This motion was passed by only 21 votes, 323 for 302 against. If everything had been clearly understood at the time of the debate I wonder if a number of Liberal Democrat MPs would have been less easily persuaded out of their consciences?
Everyone gains financially from graduates: teachers, doctors, dentists and engineers help create a better society for everyone.
Surely then all high earners have a stake in paying for higher education. The proposed system fails to ask for significant contribution from those who passively benefit from others’ degrees or those who benefited from their own free education. Despite the government's claims I have yet to meet a non-degree holder who is not glad there are people with the essential skills only obtainable through degree-level study and is not happy to fund them
This government's divide and rule policy is based around the idea non-degree holders begrudge paying for others' degrees. In the pool of people I know what non-degree holders begrudge is having paid for the degrees of the present government, who have gained the financial rewards they are so keen to emphasise, but who now refuse to fund the education of the children of the people who funded them.
The government likes to give the impression that degrees are 'given' to students and that the main purpose of a degree is wealth creation for the individual.
However the truth is that a significant number of students do demanding degrees for which they work hard, in fact these degrees are not sold to them but earned through this hard work. Many of these students then choose their careers from a desire to do good, not to make a lot of money.
Now for the first time, to get these benefits as a society, we are willing to let many of our young people take a huge financial gamble, whilst we sit backing the full knowledge that as a result of their social consciences some of them will be considerably worse off.
Section11: Tuition fees and general opinion
Everyone gains financially from graduates: teachers, doctors, dentists and engineers help create a better society for everyone.
Surely then all high earners have a stake in paying for higher education. The proposed system fails to ask for significant contribution from those who passively benefit from others’ degrees or those who benefited from their own free education. Despite the government's claims I have yet to meet a non-degree holder who is not glad there are people with the essential skills only obtainable through degree-level study and is not happy to fund them
This government's divide and rule policy is based around the idea non-degree holders begrudge paying for others' degrees. In the pool of people I know what non-degree holders begrudge is having paid for the degrees of the present government, who have gained the financial rewards they are so keen to emphasise, but who now refuse to fund the education of the children of the people who funded them.
The government likes to give the impression that degrees are 'given' to students and that the main purpose of a degree is wealth creation for the individual.
However the truth is that a significant number of students do demanding degrees for which they work hard, in fact these degrees are not sold to them but earned through this hard work. Many of these students then choose their careers from a desire to do good, not to make a lot of money.
Now for the first time, to get these benefits as a society, we are willing to let many of our young people take a huge financial gamble, whilst we sit backing the full knowledge that as a result of their social consciences some of them will be considerably worse off.
