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.

I'd put it earlier, when they started cutting grants for 'vocational' courses earlier that decade.

I see that Call Me Dave has been caught out lying through his teeth during his speech on the economy yesterday: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21714549

I see that Call Me Dave has been caught out lying through his teeth during his speech on the economy yesterday: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21714549

Again?



He's not even a competent liar.

Quote Kosh="Kosh"I see that Call Me Dave has been caught out lying through his teeth during his speech on the economy yesterday: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21714549'" So from the article above we go from here: [iHe said the OBR had made it clear that growth had been depressed by the legacy of the 2008 financial crisis, instability in the eurozone and a sharp rise in oil prices between 2010 and 2011. The watchdog, he added, was "absolutely clear that the deficit reduction plan is not responsible, in fact, quite the opposite".[/i To this response from the OBR - a direct contradiction [i"To summarise, we believe that fiscal consolidation measures have reduced economic growth over the past couple of years."[/i To here: [iA Downing Street spokesman said the OBR had pinpointed "external inflation shocks, the eurozone and financial sector difficulties as the reasons why their forecasts have come in lower than expected". "That is precisely the point the prime minister was underlining," he added. [/i No he wasn't! While the OBR acknowledges several factors besides austerity measures have contributed to the state of the economy they are quite categorical that deficit reduction was a factor and Cameron was saying they said the exact opposite. That was his point. So not only do we have Cameron telling porkies we have "A Downing Street spokesman" doing the same. Who are these "Downing Street spokesmen" anyway? Civil servants? If so they ought not be defending government policy. That is up to the government not them. If they are civel servants then they have been politicised.

Quote Kosh="Kosh"I see that Call Me Dave has been caught out lying through his teeth during his speech on the economy yesterday: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21714549'" So from the article above we go from here: [iHe said the OBR had made it clear that growth had been depressed by the legacy of the 2008 financial crisis, instability in the eurozone and a sharp rise in oil prices between 2010 and 2011. The watchdog, he added, was "absolutely clear that the deficit reduction plan is not responsible, in fact, quite the opposite".[/i To this response from the OBR - a direct contradiction [i"To summarise, we believe that fiscal consolidation measures have reduced economic growth over the past couple of years."[/i To here: [iA Downing Street spokesman said the OBR had pinpointed "external inflation shocks, the eurozone and financial sector difficulties as the reasons why their forecasts have come in lower than expected". "That is precisely the point the prime minister was underlining," he added. [/i No he wasn't! While the OBR acknowledges several factors besides austerity measures have contributed to the state of the economy they are quite categorical that deficit reduction was a factor and Cameron was saying they said the exact opposite. That was his point. So not only do we have Cameron telling porkies we have "A Downing Street spokesman" doing the same. Who are these "Downing Street spokesmen" anyway? Civil servants? If so they ought not be defending government policy. That is up to the government not them. If they are civel servants then they have been politicised.

Never mind a triple A rating. I went to the bank for a loan. The manager didn't speak, he just laughed and gave me a double V rating.