I, like millions of other students, woke up on Tuesday to news that Lord Browne's review of higher education had recommended hitting future students with even more debt than the nearly £25,000 we graduate with now.
My university, Sheffield Hallam, sits in Nick Clegg's constituency and it wasn't long before a crowd of students and supporters had gathered outside his constituency office. They all carried modified versions of the pledge he signed during the general election, which read "I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative". The new versions read "I pledge never to vote for Nick Clegg if tuition fees rise". Clegg appears to have completely abandoned students and unless over the coming weeks he makes it clear that he will not let the Conservatives raise tuition fees we will be gathering signatures calling for the Sheffield Hallam election to be re-run – in the spirit of Clegg's own proposals to allow MPs accused of financial impropriety to be recalled.
I cannot understand how the government can justify claiming one minute that the main motivation for the programme of huge cuts was the "legacy [of debt the last] generation threatens to leave the next" and the next be removing 80% of the funding for teaching in universities and piling £40,000 or more of debt onto young people before they have even entered full-time work.
In endorsing the Browne report, Vince Cable and Clegg are condoning the introduction of a market in higher education that will force young people to chose the course they study and the university they attend based on financial rather than academic or aspirational factors. At 18 most of us have little idea where we will be in five years, let alone the 30 that the debt will hang over our heads, yet the government is asking us to guess how much we think we will earn over the next years and then choose if or where to go to university based on some kind of cost-benefit analysis. I don't think many 28-, 38- or 48-year-olds would be able to make that kind of guess, let alone 18-year-olds. And no matter what happens we'll enter the workplace £40,000 in debt to the government.
I was understandably furious and as I started to get reaction from friends and colleagues in the student movement, in Sheffield and nationwide, it was obvious that everyone felt the same and that there was a desire to get out and do something right there and then.
There is a persistent myth that young people are not politically engaged – I'd suggest anyone thinking that should watch a student union election or NUS presidential hustings in full flow. Students and young people care about politics and when politicians speak about things that matter to them – like their education – they listen, which is why a week before the general election 50% of students were preparing to vote for the Liberal Democrats, the only party that gave any position on tuition fees during the campaign. Many Liberal Democrats have already publicly restated their commitment to vote against the proposals in the Browne review should they be asked to, and they will no doubt be rewarded by the votes of many of the students in their constituency.
The thousands of students in Clegg's constituency will not forget his promise to them as quickly as he has and come the next election he should expect to be reminded on a daily basis. Whether that reminder will come in the form of praise or condemnation remains to be seen.
Comments in chronological order (Total 175 comments)
Post a comment14 October 2010 1:04PM
What nonsense
How many students actually bother to vote?
14 October 2010 1:06PM
And your alternative proposal is what exactly?
14 October 2010 1:09PM
Liberal Democratic political principles were shown up for what they are on Channel 4 news last night.
"Saint" Vince Cable when challenged over the fact he had signed a pre-election pledge not to increase student fees said:
“If I ever knew I would actually have to be in government I would never have signed it”
Which should be chiselled into the gravestone of the Lib Dems when they are wiped out next election.
14 October 2010 1:09PM
clegg like cameron did not know how much debt new labour put britain in,when they made their promises before last election,and when you get a new labour minister leaving a note when they got voted out stating that their was no money left,that says it all,the coalition gov was simply set up to take the blame for new labour to win the 2015 general election.
14 October 2010 1:11PM
Exactly, they are just an apathetic bunch spoiled kids, nothing to be bothered about I'm afraid.
If we were in France however the streets would be ablaze by now and Clegg would be running for his life. They are real students worth caring about, not our lazy door mats that roll over and take being lied to lying down. We could do with a little bit of that French spirit over here non?
14 October 2010 1:12PM
This is not the end of the Lib Dems, however it is the beginning of the end, the end will come at the next election.
14 October 2010 1:12PM
More than you think, especially in Nick Clegg's constituency where students were turned away due to demand:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/07/election-polling-stations-lock-out
14 October 2010 1:12PM
Alternative proposal? Progressive taxation to pay off the deficit and pay for full time education.
If we made the top 10% of earners pay an extra 20% tax, in one year we could pay off the deficit.
14 October 2010 1:12PM
KingCnutCase
The alternative is that, in the 6th richest nation on Earth, when graduates already on average pay more into the system via direct taxation, when in living memory university education was completely free, when British university education is respected worldwide, when university represents investment in the future, and when students with massive debts can't buy homes when first time buyers drive the housing market, then I'd suggest that it's beneficial to keep student debt down, at public expense.
14 October 2010 1:12PM
Interesting tactic, I particularly like the 'Financial Impropriety' angle. Of course it won't work but the publicity will have some effect.
It seems to me that what with the withdrawn Steelworks loan and the Tuition Fee U turn, Clegg will probably not stand in Sheffield next time.
Perhaps he will cross the house (or should that be shuffle sideways) and be parachuted into a safe Tory seat instead.
14 October 2010 1:13PM
Birdyboy
This being France with a 50% drop out rate from university at the end of the first year...? Yeah, their work ethic is an inspiration...
14 October 2010 1:14PM
If the NuLab mission to get 50% of school leavers in Uni had been properly funded, then maybe this wouldn't be a current problem. Incidentally, why 50% and not 90%, or 35%? Where did this magic number come from.
What does HE do for us, the tax -payer, or for the country, or for the student? If it is true that on average a student with a degree can earn up to 100,000 more (over a life time) than someone without, then isn't is right that they should pay something? It's just like I now pay for additional training to improve my job prospects.
So what is the alternative? According to what I have read, the Browne proposals will actually cost LESS for the poorer student than they pay now. It will cost MORE for the better off students. Sounds about right to me.
14 October 2010 1:14PM
Don't worry, in around 4.5 years time Clegg will love students again (at least for the duration of the election campaign). He will make all sorts of promises to them as he will be needing their votes and if we learn anything from history can be expected to break all those promises within a sort time of the election. After all, it is not just this issue he lied about. Since the election we have learnt that he actually wanted to do as per the conservatives and cut harder and faster. But to say that during the election would not have helped LibDem election prospects so he just lied about his policy.
14 October 2010 1:14PM
I feel I have to write a poitive comment to counterbalance the two above: certainly an article that sums up the student reaction accurately. Good luck to everyone with those placards. Though to be perfectly honest I don't understand how you were all taken in by Nick Clegg in the first place. It was clear that his position on fees was posturing, nothing more.
14 October 2010 1:15PM
Clegg cynically courted the student vote by telling them what they wanted to hear even though he knew that his promises were unaffordable and would never be agreed by any prospective coalition partner-- Labour included.
Indeed, he was doing so as late as this May when he knew the state of public finances. The excuse from Cable is risible. Of course they knew what the budget deficit was back in May. In fact it turned out lower than expected at the time.
Now that no one is spinning students it's time they thought seriously about how higher education is funded. Students, particularly those who go on to earn large sums have to contribute.
But that doesn't mean the Browne proposals are satisfactory, they aren't. There should be a fees cap and no variation between institutions. You should not choose between universities based on price.
14 October 2010 1:15PM
The good news is this wipes out the arbitrary 50% graduate target. A strange policy to promote equality when you consider 50% of jobs aren't graduate positions!
The policy was of course introduced by Oxbridge types who couldn't care less if students were paying thousands of pounds for 4 hours a week of 'International Business Studies'.
14 October 2010 1:15PM
When I wrote that there were only two other comments . . . sorry for any confusion.
14 October 2010 1:18PM
If you do not have adequate information about something then you should not be making promises about that just to get votes. Either don't promise or clarify your promises (subject to ..., providing ...). But that might not have got them the votes they needed so they just again lied.
The I didn't know ... when I promised is no excuse whatsoever. they should start to appreciate the major impact their lies and decisions have on the people they are meant to be representing, the people they are employed by and work on behalf of.
14 October 2010 1:18PM
How did the narrative slip to Graduate Tax or More Fees.
What the hell happened to Grants? It wasn't long ago that any tuition fees was unnecessary.
And don't say we can't afford it. This is using one of the most respected education systems in the world to invest in Britain's youth - there is no greater investment.
14 October 2010 1:18PM
This shouldn't be such a problem: Not all uni courses are equal - fund quotas of each subject, depending on the country's need and the courses merit.
No point in paying for 10000 media grads - let them pay for themselves.
14 October 2010 1:18PM
Events which involve what percentage of the total student body exctly?
14 October 2010 1:18PM
Yeah, I agree although you must admit that many (although obviously not all) youth were politically unegaged. But still, the lib dem turnaround has been a catastrophe, especially for traditional lib dem supporters who now don't really have a voice to represent them.
14 October 2010 1:18PM
Oh dear Clegg is hypocrisy haunted. First education and now made a liar by his manifesto broadcast on tuition fees.
I hope he is enjoying the power, it is the price he paid for ditching integrity.
14 October 2010 1:19PM
The good news is this wipes out the arbitrary 50% graduate target. A strange policy to promote equality when you consider 50% of jobs aren't graduate positions!
It doesn't of course. The Browne proposals provide for the further expansion of higher education despite cuts in public funding.
14 October 2010 1:19PM
Considered as a scheme for taking the last remaining heat out of the housing market, ensuring that everyone who's capable of earning enough to buy a house starts their working life with £40k of debt round their neck is strategy of sheer genius.
14 October 2010 1:20PM
wolfmanjack
The top 10% already account for 53% of the overall revenue collected by the Government. Why should they pay 73%, or 64% (i.e. an additional 20% of existing contribution)? There may be a good argument, but lets hear it.
14 October 2010 1:20PM
I was amongst the first to pay tuition fees, and have a loan.
At the time you may be annoyed and got all uppity like you are doing, but as you grow up you realise
1) why should University education be free? not everybody is able to do a degree so why should the less academically inclined pay for the academically inclined people to study?
2) it doesn't disproportionately affect people from poorer backgrounds at all. indeed while actually at university students from poorer households were actually better off as they had more money.
3) just accept now that it is a de-facto graduate tax that will be cancelled when you are 60. Most of us who have lived with this have got over it, it isnt a debt hanging over you, it is just an extra 70-120 pounds a month of your salary for life.
If you believe that education is important then look on this as a progressive tax in which the older generation pay money to the younger generation for university.
4) Education costs money, lecturers are highly trained individuals who expect decent salaries. Universities have buildings which must be maintained. Science degrees have labs which require expensive reagents. Someone has to pay, so who should it be?
14 October 2010 1:21PM
So, students are only interested in politics when their immediate self-interest is at stake? This is a woefully narrow notion of political engagement. This is the 'me' generation in full flow...
14 October 2010 1:22PM
Nick Clegg has abandoned everything except ambition and power.
14 October 2010 1:22PM
The priorites were decided by New Labour, without these charges how will we fund the education of the New Britons? A 40 Billion Pound Landmine left for future generations to fund.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11536829
14 October 2010 1:23PM
Clegg is still peddling this bollocks that he has to to X, Y or Z because the public finances are in a much worse state that he could have known. This is simply untrue - as pointed out by the head ot the Office for Budget Responsibility, Robert Chote, when he was at the IFS.
What a twat
14 October 2010 1:25PM
Why should they pay 73%, or 64% (i.e. an additional 20% of existing contribution)? There may be a good argument, but lets hear it.
Because their income and wealth have increased much faster than their taxes and the income and wealth of others, they can afford to pay more. Most of the rest of us can't.
However, you can only spend the money raised once. Increasing public spending on students is just not as high a priority as other areas of govt spending. Students who have benefitted from a degree should contribute towards the cost.
14 October 2010 1:26PM
Yeah but no but...do they vote in the elections that matter?
14 October 2010 1:27PM
The Liberal Democrats have annihilated themselves as a political force. I don't mourn for the death of their party, I couldn't care less, but I think it's a real shame for our political system in general. I can't see how it'll be other than back to the old two party system come the next election.
14 October 2010 1:27PM
It is called manufactured consent.
Commissioning an "independent review" from someone the political establishment knows will give the "right" answer is part of this process of limiting the public debate to those options acceptable to the powers that be.
No tuition fees plus the restoration of grants with well administered loans is the best way to proceed, in my view. But this option has to be excluded from the discussion.
14 October 2010 1:28PM
Students/Young People have voted LibDems but most have said - NEVER EVER again.
Clegg is just a hypocritical smirker with no principles.
14 October 2010 1:28PM
The Labour Party abandoned students (and the rest of the country) when it chose to bankrupt us in its criminal spending spree. We are now reaping what Labour have sown. To try and pin it on old Cleggy is just rediculous.
14 October 2010 1:29PM
If Clegg goes on treating his constituents in this way he may well lose his seat next time. That would not necessarily be a bad thing.
14 October 2010 1:29PM
The Lib Dems are like stilton - they used to be yellow but now they've got blue running right through them.
It really does take someone shameless to completely abandon a key election policy like this one. I don't think the party will be recovering from this coalition any time soon.
14 October 2010 1:30PM
Best of luck with the campaign to recall a current sitting MP, seeing as the proposal to allow recalls was just (and will only ever be) that. I'm also unsure as to the meaning behind "...in the spirit of Clegg's own proposals to allow MPs accused of financial impropriety to be recalled": is there a suggestion of financial impropriety? Is there any proof that Clegg, or any LibDem, took a bung in exchange for looking the other way? In any case, assuming the LibDems did walk away from the Coalition, bear in mind that the Conservatives could still form a Govt. It would be a minority Govt, true, and they wouldn't get all their own way over legislation and in parliamentary votes. Everything else, though, would be left entirely to the Tories to do with as they liked. The LibDems are very much in the minority within the Coalition, but if things seem bad now, remember they could always be worse. (My favoured outcome - a Labour minority with LibDem support in that Coalition and Gordon Brown gone as a condition - didn't come to pass in May, sadly.)
The other thing that baffled me slightly was this:
"At 18 most of us have little idea where we will be in five years, let alone the 30 that the debt will hang over our heads."
One, the debt is not a new concept here, it's 'just' a larger debt. But tbh an 18 year old considering university really should have some idea of what they are going, beyond 'Mom and Dad think it's a good idea/All my mates are going/It's a right of passage'.
If you know what you want to do and know what you need to get there (as plenty of people do, even at that age and sometimes younger), then brilliant, best of luck. If you don't really know what you want to do after uni, but have a particular passion or interest and are going for the transferable skills, with the intent of picking up work-based skills on the side...fantastic, have a ball, and I'd always hope it worked out well for anyone.
Where I think going to uni might not be the best option is if neither of these scenarios apply, and you go 'just because' and/or you have no real purpose. That's just plonking a debt around your neck for nothing...and where's the sense in that?
If it's a case of 'no alternative', then that is where the system has really failed; there should always be alternatives (in other articles, people have suggested returning nursing, among other things, to non-degree status, and I agree with that; A-levels or even good GCSEs should be enough to prove how bright you are). Young people would then have a wider, better choice, and 'a good career' wouldn't depend on uni and tens of thousands worth of individual debt.
14 October 2010 1:30PM
Caroline, instead of listening try some direct action, students today, at least in this country, are so bloody docile. 40 years ago we marched against the establishment for any old reason. Try taking a leaf out of the French students book.
Get off your knees and protest!
14 October 2010 1:30PM
Students may not have been politically engaged. But hitting them with £40K of debt and compound interest will change that.
A lot of parents will get politically engaged as well.
14 October 2010 1:33PM
Clegg will end his political career as a Tory backbencher regretting what might have been.
14 October 2010 1:35PM
Yes, Cable and Clegg are disgusting.
A similar thing happened to me when I bought a suit.
As you know, the right to clothes is a very basic human right. What sort of society would this be, if we had no clothes!
Last week, I had to buy a suit. I wanted to buy a suit that would make me look like Prince Poppycock. However, that suit was more expensive than I could afford, even though I am quite well off. If I couldn't afford to dress as Prince PoppyCock, just imagine how difficult a poor, possible BME person would find it!
I was shocked to discover that there is no government grant for a Prince PoppyCock suit. I wrote to my MP. I explained how clothes are a basic right. I explained how my choice of clothes should be constrained by no practical considerations at all, because I am completely incapable of making decisions that affect my future.
In the event, I had to buy a suit myself. I had to buy a grey suit from Marks and Spencer.
It was the government's fault
It was the fault of the government
I was very let down
From the budget I was expecting a one million quid handout
I was very disappointed
It was the government's fault
It was the fault of the government
I beecame semi-autistic type person
And I didn't have a pen
And I didn't heve a condom
It was the fault of the government
I think I'll emigrate to Sweden or Poland
And get looked after properly by government
Happy now, Cable and Clegg?
14 October 2010 1:36PM
@ tonystoke:
"40 years ago we marched against the establishment for any old reason."
But that was then. Do it now, and you might get Plod wanting to nick you under some sub-section of the anti-terror laws - laws that the students of the 60s and 70s helped to put in place (just one part of the 'we're having that...better ring-fence it now we have it/are the New Establishment' 'vibe' of the Boomer generation).
Listening, then engaging in reasoned debate will work if logic and/or common sense are on your side. Wandering around with megaphones and all that BS only got you ill thought of, changed nothing, and the louder you shouted, the thicker your file became at MI5.
14 October 2010 1:38PM
The Labour Party abandoned students (and the rest of the country) when it chose to bankrupt us in its criminal spending spree
These supposedly 'criminal' plans were supported by both the Tories and Lib Dems-- to claim anything else was a smear according to Cameron.
They also knew exactly what govt borrowing was because the figures are published monthly and borrowing projections are published in the budget and revised in the Autumn spending review.
Current borrowing turned out to be more than £20 billion less than the projections in the last financial year. It is simply false to claim the public finances are worse than was expected at the time of the election.
14 October 2010 1:40PM
clegg is now known as a gutless lying coward
and I hope the people of Sheffield remember this soon at any election
He has already kicked his own pe3ople in the teeth over forgemasters
His is as someone else has posted earlier...a total lying twat!!
14 October 2010 1:40PM
The elephant in the room is that for many, higher education is a total waste of time. It’s been 9 years since I graduated and not one of the jobs I have worked in since have required a degree and what I learned at university has never been of any practical use in my work. I’ve learned every marketable skill I currently have ‘on the job’. I simply went to university because it was considered to the proper thing to do once I finished my A-Levels. Not once was the option of going to straight into work ever presented to me by anyone of my teachers.
In fact most of graduate friends are working in fields that are of no relevance to what they studied during their time at university and they would have been just as capable of doing their first jobs at 18 as they where at 21-22. Their studies contributed virtually nothing of practical worth.
Yes I had allot of fun at university but I quite often think of it as 3 years of accumulating debt, when I really would have been better off earning money.
Perhaps discouraging people from university is no bad thing.
14 October 2010 1:42PM
TonyStoke Caroline, instead of listening try some direct action, students today, at least in this country, are so bloody docile. 40 years ago we marched against the establishment for any old reason. Try taking a leaf out of the French students book. Get off your knees and protest!
This applies everyone not just students. What a spineless lot we are.
14 October 2010 1:42PM
ishouldbewriting
14 October 2010 1:36PM
@ tonystoke:
"40 years ago we marched against the establishment for any old reason."
But that was then. Do it now, and you might get Plod wanting to nick you under some sub-section of the anti-terror laws - laws that the students of the 60s and 70s helped to put in place (just one part of the 'we're having that...better ring-fence it now we have it/are the New Establishment' 'vibe' of the Boomer generation).
Listening, then engaging in reasoned debate will work if logic and/or common sense are on your side. Wandering around with megaphones and all that BS only got you ill thought of, changed nothing, and the louder you shouted, the thicker your file became at MI5.
Only one thing wrong with your analogy Mate
under this dishonest lot (temporarily in power)
There will be far less police or civil servants to record bugger all!!