From seeing the footage it just looked like the troublemakers were a load of pissed up kids on a massive bender who were just there for a laugh and to cause trouble. This was highlighted by the interview on some cable channel where a kid wearing a balaclava was standing there with a 4 pack of Strongbow in his hand barely able to stand up and couldn't tell the reporter the reason of the protest.
"v_f_r, I agree it is very worrying, although is that not what efficiency means? I'm no expert on the PGCE structure but if Goldsmith's department closed and another university's (say Greenwich's) increased, there must be economies of scale that can be gained. As with any cuts, certain people will lose out but as long as the possibility exists to study for a vital role such as yours, then I don't see the loss."
The full white paper is yet to be published but all the current signals suggest that the government want to move away from a University based teacher training program towards a school based model. The current proposal is that ALL funding for Arts and Humanities subjects will be scrapped. This means that it won't be just Goldsmiths that suffers but all Universities that provide PGCE courses.
[cite]Posted By: southamptonaddick[/cite]The cost of living is the same for everybody. The first lesson a student should learn is "living within your means" and not to think that I'm on a three year bender but mum and dad will pay.
My house mate does a 35 hour a week course, due to the among his parents earn only gets a small loan, once we've paid out rent he's left with about £100 for the term, how would you suggest he lives within that?
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]Ormiston Addick, that's the point I'm trying to make: that Cameron is saying we are raising domestic students fees in order to keep international students from oaying more. This is despite the fact that most domestic students will stay and contribute to our economy whilst most of the foreign students go back to where they came from, with the benefits of our education system, and not contributing anything to our tax system. That's quite wrong
I was always under the impression international students paid more anyway, I'm pretty sure that was the case at my university. And in regards to the other point about most will go back to where they came from I would also have to disagree, there was quite a high proportuion of foreign students on my course and as far as I'm aware they still all live and work in the UK
[cite]Posted By: southamptonaddick[/cite]Allez les addicks just seen your reply to my post earlier.
Sorry your arguement about the bank of mum and dad dosen't hold up. Tuition fees are going up for the student which mum and dad don't pay. The cost of living is the same for everybody. The first lesson a student should learn is "living within your means" and not to think that I'm on a three year bender but mum and dad will pay.
Couldn't agree more about living within your means, but if you're living in London or any other city as a student then rent alone takes up the majority of the maintenance allowance of your loan. That's another issue about house prices though...
Point is that under these proposals students will come out of uni with at least £27,000 debts just for fees (so not even including living costs for those 3 years). Atm I'm coming out with around £20,000 for my four year course (and that's after working full time all summer and part time through term), which as stilladdicted states can be crucifying, so is only going to get worse under these proposals. Parents want their kids to have the best start in life, so of course some will want to reduce that.
It's a divisive issue but think about that hospital you go to when you break a leg playing footy or whatever. Doctors have a seven year course, so under these proposals that's £63,000 of debt for tuition fees alone by the time they have qualified and can work as a junior doctor on about £26,000. Personally I can't quite see how anyone can justify that.
Everyone, not just students, should learn to live within their means, no problem with that. However, the message from the Govt is. 'Go ahead, run up debts of £50,000+, no problem at all, just pay it off if and when you can'. Bit contradictory I feel.
Plus, I've just received a letter asking for research funding money from the Alzheimers Society because a doctor working on the genetic factors in Alzheimers disease will not get any more funding at Kings College Hospital. It's a real tragedy, his research work was extremely exciting and for the first time, offered real hope for those unfortunate people who develop Alzheimers early in life. Just a small hint of what is yet to come, and it will affect all of us, not just students.
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]Ormiston Addick, that's the point I'm trying to make: that Cameron is saying we are raising domestic students fees in order to keep international students from oaying more. This is despite the fact that most domestic students will stay and contribute to our economy whilst most of the foreign students go back to where they came from, with the benefits of our education system, and not contributing anything to our tax system. That's quite wrong
What a load of shite. Foreign students pay the market rate, if as Cameron says a little more to subsidise cheaper rates for domestic students. Foreign students inject external cash into the economy from outside the UK in the form of rent and living cost expenditure. There is no net loss to society for a cash flow that is purely positive on the UK balance of payments. Maybe if students had a brain and bothered to think on the different economic and phillosophical points that this iniquity between foreign and UK student fees, well they wouldn't spout so much bullshit.
Personally I just feel sorry for plenty of foreign students getting a very watered down poor product for so much money. How is it an unequal benefit if they pay the market rate? It's completely illogical, every UK student should be shaking their hand atm.
....."If the tuition fees go up why does that cost the parents more, as I see it the student doesn't pay it back until they are earning a certain amount.".......
The problem is that if students take tuition fees and maintenance loans then 5, 10 years or however long down the line when they try to buy a property they will either be unable to get a mortgage at all or pay an obscene rate of interest in the unlikely event of being able to get one.
As a parent the dilemma is do you try and help them at uni (probably by extending your own mortgage) so they don't need to take loans or do you let events take their course only to have to help them buy a property when you are that much older.
In other words, one way or the other, the parent does end up paying.
Foreign students pay vastly over the odds - that's why my employer is bending over backwards to get them in as they are seen as a strategy to soften the blow of big budget cuts....whether they will balance the books is another story as every university is after the same students to try and get their hands on their lovely lolly.
There are some good points on here, and it can be hard to make ends meet as a student even if you max your loans (especially if you have no access to hardship funds etc.), but the essential point that you can borrow a vast amount of money and only pay it back when you are, essentially, successful still seems to be evading some on here - it is not the same as having to pay up front ffs! As for the problems with mortgages, well that is another story. The price of property in this country is ridiculous and has been inflated to a ridiculous degree where it is beyond the reach of most ordinary people (especially so in the SE). I honestly think that it would be the best thing for all if we had a massive property price crash....and I say that as a mortgage paying homeowner!
Another point - research should always be a priority for funding. In a wider context it is the only way that we move forward and it's where all new innovations come from. Stop doing it and the human race stands still....
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]Violence at demos is wrong....but a 200% increase in fees? Yeah that's OK is it? What about a 200% increase in car tax or petrol for the folk who 'choose' to be motorists?
But it's students so it's alright. I can't believe some people think £7k a year is reasonable.
Today's scenes will be very minor compared to what's coming up. And so it begins.
I still don't understand why the state can't look at where degrees are needed and make those courses free and visa versa where they are less important. It is wrong to discourage students who will benefit the country in the long term but if there is little evidence this would be the case, why should taxpayers subsidise? Is it fair to support students to invest an important part of their lives into something that won't help them at all. Didn't mean to undermine History dgrees btw -and I appreciate it does demonstrate certain attributes if you get a good degree but there are other ways to demonstrate these and it does create a certain snobbery about degrees IMO. I have observed that the managers who value degrees the most have come through that system themselves.
The question is also about should Education always be a utilitarian thing? Is it OK to learn something that is not directly related to the job market or to the needs of the country?
this is the torys pulling up the draw bridge, so basically only the elite rich will go to uni, or the exceptional less well off - the folk in the middle can ferk off, much like it used to be way back. A degree just isn't worth that sort of money, this is tantamount to destroying Higher Education as we know it.
Another thing I'd like to know - students will now be completely responsible for paying back their various fees/loans afterwards, based on their subsequent income, why then should their parents income have any bearing on that at the outset?
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]Ormiston Addick, that's the point I'm trying to make: that Cameron is saying we are raising domestic students fees in order to keep international students from oaying more. This is despite the fact that most domestic students will stay and contribute to our economy whilst most of the foreign students go back to where they came from, with the benefits of our education system, and not contributing anything to our tax system. That's quite wrong
What a load of shite. Foreign students pay the market rate, if as Cameron says a little more to subsidise cheaper rates for domestic students. Foreign students inject external cash into the economy from outside the UK in the form of rent and living cost expenditure. There is no net loss to society for a cash flow that is purely positive on the UK balance of payments. Maybe if students had a brain and bothered to think on the different economic and phillosophical points that this iniquity between foreign and UK student fees, well they wouldn't spout so much bullshit.
Personally I just feel sorry for plenty of foreign students getting a very watered down poor product for so much money. How is it an unequal benefit if they pay the market rate? It's completely illogical, every UK student should be shaking their hand atm.
Obviously the injections into the balance of payments are beneficial to the economy, but why should Cameron be pandering to a group of people he has no responsibility/mandate to. If you're taking that approach, you as well forget the immigration system for all foreigners inject some money into the UK economy.
International students in the UK come from richer families in their homeland otherwise they couldn't afford the fees. This means that compared to UK students, their demand is more price inelastic, for they are coming to our universities for the name value they give over other international institutions. Any rise in international fees would therefore have much less of an effect on student numbers coming into this country then a similar rise on domestic fees would on the number of domestic students going to uni. Under the present proposals domestic students will be paying a similar amount to international students, which is completely wrong in my opinion.
I'm not normally to the political right but we, as a country, have a reputation as one of the best places for higher education in the world, and international students should have to pay a premium if they wish to experience that. Going to one of the universities with the highest number of international students in the country, I appreciate what international students give to our higher education system but our university system is still cheaper for international students than those of comparable stature, such as the US. Considering that for every international student, that's one less space that can be provided to a domestic student (and anyone applying for good courses will tell you how competitive the system is already), I don't think it's that unreasonable for tuition fee increases to be shared amongst both international and domestic students.
Watching them charging a thinnish line of OB on sky news now, pelting them with missiles. Anyone on this camera now picked out should be banned from any university or educational establishment for a set number of years.
It must puzzle thinking students that tuition fees have to treble because we can't afford them yet when the EU demands £7 billion to help save the Euro even though we are not in it, under the guise of helping Ireland out, little Georgie Osborne rushes to get his cheque book out.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]this is the torys pulling up the draw bridge, so basically only the elite rich will go to uni, or the exceptional less well off - the folk in the middle can ferk off, much like it used to be way back. A degree just isn't worth that sort of money, this is tantamount to destroying Higher Education as we know it.
Another thing I'd like to know - students will now be completely responsible for paying back their various fees/loans afterwards, based on their subsequent income, why then should their parents income have any bearing on that at the outset?
I'm someone generally accused of being a Guardianista by some of the more extreme elements on here, but I see this post as a being a complete overreaction. If you're a student paying these higher fees and you land a job that pays 25k, you have to pay back no more than £30 a month. Sorry, but this isn't unreasonable and it doesn't make education unatainable. Unless you believe that say, a mobile phone is something someone folk on 25k cannot afford.
I think it might help to focus people's minds on going into further education in order to enhance career prospects. The glut of people doing photography degrees and meeja studies might need to take a look at whether this is going to improve their earnings potential.
I think the basic standards of what's a minimum acceptable level of living is also something that's crept up over the years. When I was a poor student one of the lads had an old black and white portable and we made do with that because we were potless. You worked a bit and you did without. I did 99% of my drinking at subsidised bars and I didn't do away games.
I'm hoping I'm not swallowing a load of daily mail here, but most students now have mobiles, laptops, broadband which all cost. Many also eat out and go to more (or at least more expensive) gigs than was the norm back in the good old days and frequent non-student clubs. There's sky TV, DVD subscriptions and other things I don't understand. I think more probably have jobs, but it does strike me that there's a lot of hand wringing about having to pay back the cost of the education, but the same people don't seem so bothered by debt that is caused by consumer electronics and that is on a lot worse terms than the student loans.
I realise I'm generalising, but I think that claims that these changes make education out of the reach of a lot of people are misleading.
Also, I do think that paying for education might help raise standards. When I went to uni it was a lot more of an elite (in terms of numbers) that goes now, but the standards of a lot of the course and the workload were pretty poor. It was a hoop to jump through, it got me a better job than I'd have gotten under my own steam, but it was largely a waste of time and we allowed it to be a waste of time because we weren't paying and we were happy to dick around. Maybe by forcing today's students to have a bit of skin in the game it'll make them more discerning customers than we were?
you seem to be focussing on the day to day costs rather than the long term debt burden, and perhaps you aren't taking into account the high and ever increasing cost of living - most parents that are able need to save to give their kids any chance to get a property of their own (one day) as do those kids themselves, let alone the addition of extra debt. With this on top, the debt levels will be a huge burden, and will ultimately put people off. You also missed my second point entirely.
What the system will ultimately do in my view is destroy non closely job related degrees, except for the richer members of our society, and will thereby destroy higher education as we know it
PS (edit) not forgetting the struggle in the first place to get the kids educated to degree level standard in the first place, even grammar places are now increasingly taken by out of boro kids who send their kids to prep school and bump up the pass mark accordingly
PPS what is actually occuring here is a big tax increase, or a graduate tax by another name. I agree with you about the growth of low standard degrees that required very low grades etc, can we no just roll back those changes, so that a degree means something again and solve the funding crisis at the same time?
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]this is the torys pulling up the draw bridge, so basically only the elite rich will go to uni, or the exceptional less well off - the folk in the middle can ferk off, much like it used to be way back. A degree just isn't worth that sort of money, this is tantamount to destroying Higher Education as we know it.
Another thing I'd like to know - students will now be completely responsible for paying back their various fees/loans afterwards, based on their subsequent income, why then should their parents income have any bearing on that at the outset?
I don't think that the Tory party are being elitist about this, although I can see the consequences will benefit those with money, but as with several other things concerning education and society they clearly haven't thought things through.
Cameron talks about engendering a "big society" (a welcome turn around from the Thatcherite notion that there was no such as society) and undeniably the best way to get people out of the poverty trap is through education. But this will put further education beyond many people and therefore deny them the opportunity for social and economic mobility. For example I have two nieces who are doing their GCSEs and A levels this year, both are quite bright and expected to do well but neither however want to go to uni however because of the prospect of beginning working life with debts of £20-30,000. So what kind of example is this setting them and many others who don't have rich parents? Why bother striving to improve yourself when university and career prospects from a degree are being priced out of your reach? Isn't the consequence of all this to breed a generation of ill educated people who'll give up on studying and want to become grime rappers or x factor contestants.
The problem is that up to a generation ago many would have left school at 16 and learnt a trade and become apprenticed to make things. We as a society in the name of profit and business efficiency have exported too mnay jobs, especially in manufacturing overseas. Now we have to deal with the consequences - large numbers of school leavers without a career path except to go to college or uni and the Tory government have just put that beyond many people.
what does that Big society actually involve though apart from lots of cuts to services? Perhaps Thatcher actually called it right? Perhaps there isn't such a thing as society except in a very loose sense, which could actually be an argument for the state to intervene
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]what does that Big society actually involve though apart from lots of cuts to services? Perhaps Thatcher actually called it right? Perhaps there isn't such a thing as society except in a very loose sense, which could actually be an argument for the state to intervene
The "Big Society" thing is another ill-thought through idea, call-me-Dave wants people to volunteer to sweep the streets, man libraries and to generally take on some of the roles that used to be considered paid work.
I'm somewhat suspicious that you'll see ex-Etonian toffs donning donkey jackets and clocking on to pick up litter, so I presume he's aiming this initiative at the type of people who were formerly being paid to sweep the streets and do library work. As with his every other utterance from him it's vague, meaningless, parochial and patronising.
People have interpreted the ideas and vision in different ways, but we see the core of the big society as three principles:
•Empowering individuals and communities: Decentralising and redistributing power not just from Whitehall to local government, but also directly to communities, neighbourhoods and individuals
•Encouraging social responsibility: Encouraging organisations and individuals to get involved in social action, whether small neighbourly activities like hosting a Big Lunch to large collective actions like saving the local post office
•Creating an enabling and accountable state: Transforming government action from top-down micromanagement and one-size-fits-all solutions to a flexible approach defined by transparency, payment by results, and support for social enterprise and cooperatives
•giving communities a greater say over their local planning system and saving local services, such as post offices and pubs
•creating a new generation of community organisers that will be trained to support the establishment of neighbourhood groups and introducing measures to encourage giving and philanthropy
•encouraging volunteering and involvement in social action, including launching a national ‘Big Society Day’ and making regular community involvement a key element of key civil service staff appraisals
•piloting a new National Citizen Service which aims to give 16 year olds the chance to develop the skills needed to be active and responsible citizens, mix with people from different backgrounds, and start getting involved in their communities
•supporting mutuals, co-operatives, charities and social enterprises and giving them greater involvement in the running of public services. Funds from dormant bank accounts will be used to establish a Big Society Bank, which will provide new finance for neighbourhood groups, charities, social enterprises and other non-governmental bodies
•increasing access to government-held data through a ‘new right to data’ for citizens to ensure Government data is published. The Police will be obliged to publish monthly crime statistics
•extending powers for local government by giving a general power of competence to local councils and conducting a comprehensive review of local government finance in order to help remove restrictions that limit the work of local councils.
Have to say its a load of old waffle and seems in most cases not to save a penny, it seems to try and persuade people they have some power (not sure what that is supposed to acually achieve anyway), when they don't really. Indeed a lot of the charities that this sort of thing is dependent on have found their funding cut I read recently.
The "Big Society" is just a ruse to get things done on the cheap by volunteers. Exactly as you indicate, BlackForestReds, my local council want to change the way that the libraries are run so that they are "community managed" - what that means is they want volunteers to run our libraries. As it is, I think most people in there are volunteers, so they just want to take away the few paid professionals we have left.
Raz, didn't comment on your second point - it seems reasonable so I had nothing to add.
While the idea of that kind of debt scares me, in a reality when you only have pay back 30 quid a month on a 25k income, I just don't see how people regard it as insurmountable, while at the same time having an iPhone or a Sky subscription which have far more demanding payment terms.
Comments
OB should have been prepared with riot gear & allowed rubber bullets
lol at nss. i was downwind mate and the smell of pot noodle and sticky tissues was overwhelming
The full white paper is yet to be published but all the current signals suggest that the government want to move away from a University based teacher training program towards a school based model. The current proposal is that ALL funding for Arts and Humanities subjects will be scrapped. This means that it won't be just Goldsmiths that suffers but all Universities that provide PGCE courses.
My house mate does a 35 hour a week course, due to the among his parents earn only gets a small loan, once we've paid out rent he's left with about £100 for the term, how would you suggest he lives within that?
Couldn't agree more about living within your means, but if you're living in London or any other city as a student then rent alone takes up the majority of the maintenance allowance of your loan. That's another issue about house prices though...
Point is that under these proposals students will come out of uni with at least £27,000 debts just for fees (so not even including living costs for those 3 years). Atm I'm coming out with around £20,000 for my four year course (and that's after working full time all summer and part time through term), which as stilladdicted states can be crucifying, so is only going to get worse under these proposals. Parents want their kids to have the best start in life, so of course some will want to reduce that.
It's a divisive issue but think about that hospital you go to when you break a leg playing footy or whatever. Doctors have a seven year course, so under these proposals that's £63,000 of debt for tuition fees alone by the time they have qualified and can work as a junior doctor on about £26,000. Personally I can't quite see how anyone can justify that.
Plus, I've just received a letter asking for research funding money from the Alzheimers Society because a doctor working on the genetic factors in Alzheimers disease will not get any more funding at Kings College Hospital. It's a real tragedy, his research work was extremely exciting and for the first time, offered real hope for those unfortunate people who develop Alzheimers early in life. Just a small hint of what is yet to come, and it will affect all of us, not just students.
What a load of shite. Foreign students pay the market rate, if as Cameron says a little more to subsidise cheaper rates for domestic students. Foreign students inject external cash into the economy from outside the UK in the form of rent and living cost expenditure. There is no net loss to society for a cash flow that is purely positive on the UK balance of payments. Maybe if students had a brain and bothered to think on the different economic and phillosophical points that this iniquity between foreign and UK student fees, well they wouldn't spout so much bullshit.
Personally I just feel sorry for plenty of foreign students getting a very watered down poor product for so much money. How is it an unequal benefit if they pay the market rate? It's completely illogical, every UK student should be shaking their hand atm.
....."If the tuition fees go up why does that cost the parents more, as I see it the student doesn't pay it back until they are earning a certain amount.".......
The problem is that if students take tuition fees and maintenance loans then 5, 10 years or however long down the line when they try to buy a property they will either be unable to get a mortgage at all or pay an obscene rate of interest in the unlikely event of being able to get one.
As a parent the dilemma is do you try and help them at uni (probably by extending your own mortgage) so they don't need to take loans or do you let events take their course only to have to help them buy a property when you are that much older.
In other words, one way or the other, the parent does end up paying.
There are some good points on here, and it can be hard to make ends meet as a student even if you max your loans (especially if you have no access to hardship funds etc.), but the essential point that you can borrow a vast amount of money and only pay it back when you are, essentially, successful still seems to be evading some on here - it is not the same as having to pay up front ffs! As for the problems with mortgages, well that is another story. The price of property in this country is ridiculous and has been inflated to a ridiculous degree where it is beyond the reach of most ordinary people (especially so in the SE). I honestly think that it would be the best thing for all if we had a massive property price crash....and I say that as a mortgage paying homeowner!
Another point - research should always be a priority for funding. In a wider context it is the only way that we move forward and it's where all new innovations come from. Stop doing it and the human race stands still....
Today's scenes will be very minor compared to what's coming up. And so it begins.
Another thing I'd like to know - students will now be completely responsible for paying back their various fees/loans afterwards, based on their subsequent income, why then should their parents income have any bearing on that at the outset?
Obviously the injections into the balance of payments are beneficial to the economy, but why should Cameron be pandering to a group of people he has no responsibility/mandate to. If you're taking that approach, you as well forget the immigration system for all foreigners inject some money into the UK economy.
International students in the UK come from richer families in their homeland otherwise they couldn't afford the fees. This means that compared to UK students, their demand is more price inelastic, for they are coming to our universities for the name value they give over other international institutions. Any rise in international fees would therefore have much less of an effect on student numbers coming into this country then a similar rise on domestic fees would on the number of domestic students going to uni. Under the present proposals domestic students will be paying a similar amount to international students, which is completely wrong in my opinion.
I'm not normally to the political right but we, as a country, have a reputation as one of the best places for higher education in the world, and international students should have to pay a premium if they wish to experience that. Going to one of the universities with the highest number of international students in the country, I appreciate what international students give to our higher education system but our university system is still cheaper for international students than those of comparable stature, such as the US. Considering that for every international student, that's one less space that can be provided to a domestic student (and anyone applying for good courses will tell you how competitive the system is already), I don't think it's that unreasonable for tuition fee increases to be shared amongst both international and domestic students.
She's evidently too thick to go to university so get her out for a start.
I'm someone generally accused of being a Guardianista by some of the more extreme elements on here, but I see this post as a being a complete overreaction. If you're a student paying these higher fees and you land a job that pays 25k, you have to pay back no more than £30 a month. Sorry, but this isn't unreasonable and it doesn't make education unatainable. Unless you believe that say, a mobile phone is something someone folk on 25k cannot afford.
I think it might help to focus people's minds on going into further education in order to enhance career prospects. The glut of people doing photography degrees and meeja studies might need to take a look at whether this is going to improve their earnings potential.
I think the basic standards of what's a minimum acceptable level of living is also something that's crept up over the years. When I was a poor student one of the lads had an old black and white portable and we made do with that because we were potless. You worked a bit and you did without. I did 99% of my drinking at subsidised bars and I didn't do away games.
I'm hoping I'm not swallowing a load of daily mail here, but most students now have mobiles, laptops, broadband which all cost. Many also eat out and go to more (or at least more expensive) gigs than was the norm back in the good old days and frequent non-student clubs. There's sky TV, DVD subscriptions and other things I don't understand. I think more probably have jobs, but it does strike me that there's a lot of hand wringing about having to pay back the cost of the education, but the same people don't seem so bothered by debt that is caused by consumer electronics and that is on a lot worse terms than the student loans.
I realise I'm generalising, but I think that claims that these changes make education out of the reach of a lot of people are misleading.
Also, I do think that paying for education might help raise standards. When I went to uni it was a lot more of an elite (in terms of numbers) that goes now, but the standards of a lot of the course and the workload were pretty poor. It was a hoop to jump through, it got me a better job than I'd have gotten under my own steam, but it was largely a waste of time and we allowed it to be a waste of time because we weren't paying and we were happy to dick around. Maybe by forcing today's students to have a bit of skin in the game it'll make them more discerning customers than we were?
What the system will ultimately do in my view is destroy non closely job related degrees, except for the richer members of our society, and will thereby destroy higher education as we know it
PS (edit) not forgetting the struggle in the first place to get the kids educated to degree level standard in the first place, even grammar places are now increasingly taken by out of boro kids who send their kids to prep school and bump up the pass mark accordingly
PPS what is actually occuring here is a big tax increase, or a graduate tax by another name. I agree with you about the growth of low standard degrees that required very low grades etc, can we no just roll back those changes, so that a degree means something again and solve the funding crisis at the same time?
I don't think that the Tory party are being elitist about this, although I can see the consequences will benefit those with money, but as with several other things concerning education and society they clearly haven't thought things through.
Cameron talks about engendering a "big society" (a welcome turn around from the Thatcherite notion that there was no such as society) and undeniably the best way to get people out of the poverty trap is through education. But this will put further education beyond many people and therefore deny them the opportunity for social and economic mobility. For example I have two nieces who are doing their GCSEs and A levels this year, both are quite bright and expected to do well but neither however want to go to uni however because of the prospect of beginning working life with debts of £20-30,000. So what kind of example is this setting them and many others who don't have rich parents? Why bother striving to improve yourself when university and career prospects from a degree are being priced out of your reach? Isn't the consequence of all this to breed a generation of ill educated people who'll give up on studying and want to become grime rappers or x factor contestants.
The problem is that up to a generation ago many would have left school at 16 and learnt a trade and become apprenticed to make things. We as a society in the name of profit and business efficiency have exported too mnay jobs, especially in manufacturing overseas. Now we have to deal with the consequences - large numbers of school leavers without a career path except to go to college or uni and the Tory government have just put that beyond many people.
The "Big Society" thing is another ill-thought through idea, call-me-Dave wants people to volunteer to sweep the streets, man libraries and to generally take on some of the roles that used to be considered paid work.
I'm somewhat suspicious that you'll see ex-Etonian toffs donning donkey jackets and clocking on to pick up litter, so I presume he's aiming this initiative at the type of people who were formerly being paid to sweep the streets and do library work. As with his every other utterance from him it's vague, meaningless, parochial and patronising.
http://thebigsociety.co.uk/what-is-big-society/
People have interpreted the ideas and vision in different ways, but we see the core of the big society as three principles:
•Empowering individuals and communities: Decentralising and redistributing power not just from Whitehall to local government, but also directly to communities, neighbourhoods and individuals
•Encouraging social responsibility: Encouraging organisations and individuals to get involved in social action, whether small neighbourly activities like hosting a Big Lunch to large collective actions like saving the local post office
•Creating an enabling and accountable state: Transforming government action from top-down micromanagement and one-size-fits-all solutions to a flexible approach defined by transparency, payment by results, and support for social enterprise and cooperatives
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2010/100518-news-big-society-launch.aspx
18 May
The policies outlined today include:
•giving communities a greater say over their local planning system and saving local services, such as post offices and pubs
•creating a new generation of community organisers that will be trained to support the establishment of neighbourhood groups and introducing measures to encourage giving and philanthropy
•encouraging volunteering and involvement in social action, including launching a national ‘Big Society Day’ and making regular community involvement a key element of key civil service staff appraisals
•piloting a new National Citizen Service which aims to give 16 year olds the chance to develop the skills needed to be active and responsible citizens, mix with people from different backgrounds, and start getting involved in their communities
•supporting mutuals, co-operatives, charities and social enterprises and giving them greater involvement in the running of public services. Funds from dormant bank accounts will be used to establish a Big Society Bank, which will provide new finance for neighbourhood groups, charities, social enterprises and other non-governmental bodies
•increasing access to government-held data through a ‘new right to data’ for citizens to ensure Government data is published. The Police will be obliged to publish monthly crime statistics
•extending powers for local government by giving a general power of competence to local councils and conducting a comprehensive review of local government finance in order to help remove restrictions that limit the work of local councils.
Have to say its a load of old waffle and seems in most cases not to save a penny, it seems to try and persuade people they have some power (not sure what that is supposed to acually achieve anyway), when they don't really. Indeed a lot of the charities that this sort of thing is dependent on have found their funding cut I read recently.
While the idea of that kind of debt scares me, in a reality when you only have pay back 30 quid a month on a 25k income, I just don't see how people regard it as insurmountable, while at the same time having an iPhone or a Sky subscription which have far more demanding payment terms.