The truth about tuition fee increases.

[emma royd]

I'm just a little puzzled regarding the current controversy about tuition fees. The Labour Party seem to be trying to use this as a weapon against the coalition government. But in truth the increases are as a result of the Browne Report which was commissioned by Lord Mandelson on behalf of the previous administration.

 

According to Lord Mandelson the review would consider "balance of contributions to universities by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers" to University finances.The review would consider how much students should be charged for attending University. The panel was told to take into account the goal of widening participation. The panel would report its findings after the 2010 General Election ...

 

Lord Mandelson, the former Business Secretary who set up the review into higher education funding, hinted in July 2009 at a tuition fee raise stating that excellence in higher education was "not cheap" and that the country "had to face up to the challenge of paying for excellence". The Labour Party manifesto for the 2010 General Election promised extra University places but made no commitment on how much students would have to pay..

 

Isn't it odd that the coalition acted on the report as intended as presumably would a Labour Government had they won the election.

[Darth Vader]

I'm just a little puzzled regarding the current controversy about tuition fees. The Labour Party seem to be trying to use this as a weapon against the coalition government. But in truth the increases are as a result of the Browne Report which was commissioned by Lord Mandelson on behalf of the previous administration.

 

According to Lord Mandelson the review would consider "balance of contributions to universities by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers" to University finances.The review would consider how much students should be charged for attending University. The panel was told to take into account the goal of widening participation. The panel would report its findings after the 2010 General Election ...

 

Lord Mandelson, the former Business Secretary who set up the review into higher education funding, hinted in July 2009 at a tuition fee raise stating that excellence in higher education was "not cheap" and that the country "had to face up to the challenge of paying for excellence". The Labour Party manifesto for the 2010 General Election promised extra University places but made no commitment on how much students would have to pay..

 

Isn't it odd that the coalition acted on the report as intended as presumably would a Labour Government had they won the election.

 

The Labour party did not serve English students particularly well, the last time they were in power. I thought the EMA was a great introduction.

 

Emma, does it really matter, whether it's Labour or the Tories (there's no real point in calling them the CONDEMS anymore because they're all Tories, when it comes down to it) who are behind this? What matters is that it is fundamentally wrong, economically, socially, and morally.

[dawny1970]

so its ok for students, who the taxpayer help fund, smash up buildings that the tax payer paid for, controlled by police that the tax payer pays for, and they moan that they have to pay more in tuition fees :loopy:

[Darth Vader]

so its ok for students, who the taxpayer help fund, smash up buildings that the tax payer paid for, controlled by police that the tax payer pays for, and they moan that they have to pay more in tuition fees :loopy:

 

Wrong thread for this, I think. This thread is about the politics of the decisions. There is another thread on the rights and wrongs of the student demonstrations and the policing of them.

[alex3659]

so its ok for students, who the taxpayer help fund, smash up buildings that the tax payer paid for, controlled by police that the tax payer pays for, and they moan that they have to pay more in tuition fees :loopy:

 

Yep, it's ok.