Likewise in my constituency although we did once have a Labour MP, just for one term, other than that its been a Tory one for the whole of my life until the last two elections when we've had LibDem, at the moment he'll get my vote next time for two reasons, he keeps a Tory MP out, and he loves a beer and fights for small breweries and against large brewery tied leases.

I see your point about Labour having 'started the ball rolling', but it was the Tories/Lib Dems who raised the fees to such a ludicrous level. One could argue that the fees were manageable under the Labour system (though I am very much of the opinion that higher education should be entirely state funded), and that it's unfair to blame them for the Tories tripling the levels of debt most students are likely to leave university with. And I reckon the Tories would have found a way to introduce the fees without Labour having laid the groundwork.

Labour broke with the principle of free higher education. It was entirely predictable that fees were only ever going to rise. Moreover, in order to do so they started the stereotyping of privileged students being funded by the underprivileged masses. If they had done neither of these things it would have been hugely more difficult for the coalition to have introduced fees, let alone at the current ridiculous levels. It also made it impossible for them to mount an effective counter-campaign when the fees were increased, as they had started the ball rolling themselves.

I don't think people realise the long-term damage that the current system is doing to this country. And Labour started it.

It was, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that the rise the Tories introduced could have been foreseen at the time Labour introduced fees. The Tories have opportunistically utilised the financial crash as justification for the rise (and for most of their other abhorrent policies), and, since few people predicted the crash, even fewer could have predicted the tuition fee rises that were later blamed upon it.



They did, but there's only so much blame they can take for that. If the Tories abolished the 22p tax rate, would you blame Labour for having abolished the 10p rate first?

The biggest damage is that the huge increase in school leavers going onto university has lead to large gaps at the bottom end of the employment market, and also a steep rise in youth unemployment due to over qualified people leaving university with totally inappropriate qualifications for the modern day jobs market.

There is nothing wrong with encouraging youngsters to make the best of themselves, but logic tells you that not everybody can be a highly paid doctor or executive.

Also, the huge increase in university numbers could never have been funded 100% by the taxpayer.....30 or 40 years ago when only the cream went there, then maybe, but in these days of every Tom, Dick and Harry going there, then it made common sense to bring in some sort of fees system.

It's easy........... Honest!
At 47 I can still bare to look at my face in the mirror after declining to vote for either Kinnock or Blair.

No the rise in youth unemployment is due to there not being enough jobs.

Its not like there are loads of vacancies going unfilled because they can't get the staff.

If there had been a steady increase in youth unemployment in line with the increase in school leavers going to university then I would have agreed with you, but youth unemployment was lower during most of the 2000s (the period of large increase in university uptake) than it was in the 1980s and 1990s. It has only gone back up (and still not to the levels seen under Thatcher and Major) in the past three years since the financial crisis.

I'd go a bit further, maybe the take- up in university places, despite the cost in future debt, is because a degree and debt is more attractive than being unemployed.
If more jobs were available, more would be thinking that they might as well be earning.

I agree. A mate of mine is going to university after a year of being unemployed. It's not for a specific degree in a particular field. He simply doesn't know what else to do.

The quality of HE is dependent on the money that goes in, and quality was going to suffer without fees of some kind, or a vast increase in taxpayer input. Labour made the call that more University places should be available and offset some of the cost with fees. These were noble sentiments but there were two crucial factors they overlooked IMO. 1. economic slow down (recession anyone?) that would result in less public money and potentially more students trying to get an advantage in a dwindling youth employment market. This has resulted in the absolutely inevitable increase in fees - and it's going to get worse.
2. Fees will eventually result in a two tier system where only the rich can get the best education and the rest end up with a uselss piece of paper from a converted sixth form college and a debt that crushes them until middle age. This could have been avoided. When fees were introduced there should have been a scolarship scheme introduced that guaranteed the top performing students (5-10%) were exempt from fees and received some form of maintanance grant. The object of HE (again IMO) is a chance for the country to invest in it's resources (people), and higher fees will lead to large numbers of talented, bright kids from less well off backgrounds (even the middle classes must look at fees and uni debt with horror - I know I do) will be lost to the system. What a waste. Exactly what grants and free HE was intended to put right - just like it did for me.

The system is f*****d now. Un-fixable IMO, debts are here to stay. When/if my kids go to Uni they will have to go to the right one, do the right degree or not bother.