Stop the Cuts - National Demonstration

Don't worry, they work it out properly.

Ironically, done by large teams of PhDs...

I meant economic benefits for 'our society' / nation / debt etc.

The government are still paying the same amount of money but instead of giving students £3,500 to pay the unis and then paying the remaining (im guessing £5,500) themselves. They are giving students £9,000 through the loans company and making them pay it back much later. But this 5.5k isnt coming back into the economy this year or the next........

But that debt (£9000) is then sold onto a third party - investment bank, hedge fund whatever for £8500 (some amount less to account for defaults etc). So they've gone from paying £9000 to paying £500.

Edit: or if not sold on I assume there is someway of representing the current value of a future cashflow on a balance sheet, so it would affect the nations finances immediately.

If the lib dems had forced the government to fall over a rise in tuition fees then they would have appeared self indulgent. the ensuing election would most likely have returned a tory majority. Or it would result in another hung parliament and more deals and more uncertainty in markets.

One of the reasons tuition fees have gone up is cos students dont vote. Oaps do hence the winter fuel and bus passes not touched.

This is the stock response to these situations. It's not universally true, either. I don't have a magic mirror, but libdem supporters would, in my opinion, not punish the party (well, not as much as they're likely to now) for ending the government if it is because they acted in the way the promised they would. What is more, Labour, with Miliband, would be a completely different machine. This could be bad for the libdems, of course (Labour and Libdems split the vote), or in the face of the Conservatives, they may have come to a agreement on ridings, rather than risk a Conservative majority.

Anyway, my point is: 1) it's not that simple. 2) backlash from non-supporters as a reason to not act in the way you told your supporters you would, is a bit lame.

I believe that agreeing to the tuition fees rise was part of the coalition agreement; that is, opposing it would not have brought the government down but stopped that government forming in the first place. LibDem PMs were allowed to vote against it; LibDem ministers were not. Though for a while there was the bizarre possibility that Vince Cable would vote against his own bill. Instead a Conservative minority government would have formed and, as had been noted, the LibDems would probably not have been thanked for that.
The LibDems, and Clegg in particular, now have a reputation for breaking promises. Reputations count for a lot in politics - the way people 'feel' about a politician can sink or save them. As Gordon Brown found out. What happens in the next four years may or may not change that reputation. But the increased fees come in in 2012 which will only bring the subject to the fore again; leaving only two, rather than four, years for the fallout to settle.
It does really interest me though how parties campaign in systems where coalitions are likely. Especially when there are only three parties in the running and two of them, Labour and Tory, will never go into government together. If you don't trust politicians promises now how will you feel when you think they might have to negotiate after an election? Will the LibDems make public their conditions for a coalition next time? Will the other two parties?

I believe that agreeing to the tuition fees rise was part of the coalition agreement; that is, opposing it would not have brought the government down but stopped that government forming in the first place. LibDem PMs were allowed to vote against it; LibDem ministers were not. Though for a while there was the bizarre possibility that Vince Cable would vote against his own bill. Instead a Conservative minority government would have formed and, as had been noted, the LibDems would probably not have been thanked for that.
The LibDems, and Clegg in particular, now have a reputation for breaking promises. Reputations count for a lot in politics - the way people 'feel' about a politician can sink or save them. As Gordon Brown found out. What happens in the next four years may or may not change that reputation. But the increased fees come in in 2012 which will only bring the subject to the fore again; leaving only two, rather than four, years for the fallout to settle.
It does really interest me though how parties campaign in systems where coalitions are likely. Especially when there are only three parties in the running and two of them, Labour and Tory, will never go into government together. If you don't trust politicians promises now how will you feel when you think they might have to negotiate after an election? Will the LibDems make public their conditions for a coalition next time? Will the other two parties?

I was looking for the actual vote recently but couldn't find it (didn't look that hard). But I recall the libdems for the most abstained rather than vote against.

And there seems to be an irrational fear of minority governments and coalitions in the UK. A minority government would, in my opinion, been preferential to this coalition. It would have required actual working together between all the parties. What we have now is a bit of a political farce (in terms of the two parties who are in government, and what they're doing).

Also, I would be pretty shocked if this government stayed in power for the full term. Although, economic fear is a great motivator at times...

27 yes, 21 no, 8 abstained

tl;dr

any one come up with a single reason why people who desire to become middle-class or more middle-class shouldn't have to invest in themselves via university? Just like I who greatly improved my life by starting a business (well 3 now actually) have had to invest in myself and take on debt to start all of them?

yeah thats what I thought.

Piece of piss Chris: Going to university is about more than an economic return. It's about learning and broadening the mind. Measuring a degree in economic terms is missing the point of that degree entirely.

Learning and broadening the mind should be open to everyone, whether they can rationalise a business case for it or not. The evidence may show that if you go to university you will almost certainly earn more money, but there's self believe needed there too. Not something the poor, disadvantaged and downtrodden tend to have in spades.

Your approach to the debate is typical of the American ultra-meritocratic approach (a.k.a 'the American Dream') but using the relationship between parents’ and children’s incomes as an indicator of relative social mobility, data show that a number of countries including Denmark, Norway, Finland, Canada, Sweden, Germany, and France have greater relative mobility than the United States.

If you read up about the higher education systems of these countries I think you will find that their higher education offer tends to be pretty good. Generally the tab is picked up byt the state, not the individual. And this is putting aside completely the discussion about why women and minorities have a clear disadvantage in status mobility from the beginning, so surely the last thing we should do is discourage them from pursuing higher education?

Here's one student who will no longer have to worry about the cost of his degree.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23912777-sixth-form-student-faces-jail-for-throwing-fire-extinguisher-during-tuition-fees-riot.do

he also handed himself in.

32 months. With a guilty plea. And no previous. That's pretty steep.

true, but it's high profile right now and was lucky it didn't kill maim anyone.

I suspect he's the message bearer

grand! so when's the vicious pig that caved in alfie meadows' skull going to get sentenced?

Being completely reckless with a potentially lethal weapon (fire extinguisher) = 2 years
Being completely reckless with a actual lethal weapon (car) = nothing
http://road.cc/content/news/28728-driver-who-pleaded-guilty-killing-time-trialling-cyclists-walks-free-court

He deserves it.

Lad on my course was amongst those who unlawfully entered Millbank then. Him and his girlfriend were nicked, both under the Terrorism Act. He was kept in custody for 24 hours, and banned from entering the borough of Westminster. He’s still banned now, and looking at a few months inside, certainly up for trial anyway. They kept his girlfriend for less time, but held onto her shoes. The police also still have both their mobile phones. New ‘rights’ the Terrorism Act allows the cops to exploit. Neither are a danger, which is abundantly clear. Their phones contain nothing but the usual, her shoes nothing Richard Reid would envy.

That’s heavy-handed, and being made an example of, not lobbing into jail a dick who chucks a fire-extinguisher off a roof.

Had he thrown it off a roof as Critical Mass was passing by, as some kind of protest, how many people on here would be saying 32 months was too little? Or believed him when he said he did not intend to injure anyone?
He threw a fire extinguisher off the top of a 30 storey building. What kind of jail term did he expect?

So true, Marco and Tiswas.. so very, very true.

Presume that the policeman who fractured a student's skull (if he is ever traced) will not even be prosecuted.

Sadly this whole business has shown the fallicy of our criminal justice system and its approach to law and order.

Not quite 30 storey Will! But I have to admit when he threw it off and I saw it coming down in front of me I felt physically sick. It was a fucked up thing to do. It is a steep sentence, but what did anyone expect. And as for the shocking fact that the police protect there own, I know I can hardly believe it!

Even though it says he will serve half of it, with good behaviour, I doubt if he'll be at Feltham for more than a year (that is not to say this is insignificant amount of time).

The thing about Millbank is, that it was mostly people who were at their first demo that got caught, all of the anarchists etc legged it when they saw the reinforcements coming. Probably because they're known to the cops etc.

And covered their faces, wore dark unrecognisable clothing etc.

Not quite 30 storey Will! .

The restaurant is on the 29th floor. So in total I think it is 30 floors.

It wasn't from the top of the tower but one of the lower parts. 7 or 8 floors max. New coverage seems to suggest that it was right at the very top of the tower but that is typical press crap.

*"A student who admitted throwing a fire extinguisher from the roof of Millbank Tower"
*
*"Footage showed him hurling an empty metal fire extinguisher from the roof of the seven-storey building."

*So, not the roof of the big tower. Still wouldn't like to be hit by a fire extinguisher, empty of full, thrown from a seven storey building.

What did he expect? All very well playing mummys boy in the national press before your trial, but if you stupid enough to do what he did, your probably too stupid to realise your going to jail.

Well at least he achieved his aim of getting the government to pay for him to go somewhere

So, not the roof of the big tower. Still wouldn't like to be hit by a fire extinguisher, empty of full, thrown from a seven storey building.

7 floors is enough for terminal velocity - basically 30 floors would not make the ground impact / speed any faster than 7 floors - to launch anything off a building like that into a crowd indicates the person lacks some basic human traits like empathy - perhaps this was all in 'the moment', perhaps he got caught up in the thrill of it all, regardless he's a cunt who not only damaged legitimate protest but could have killed someone's girlfriend, boyfriend, dad or daughter.

Stupid thoughtless cunt, hope prison doesn't ruin him and he comes out alright and get's over all this.

: (

hope prison doesn't ruin him and he comes out alright and get's over all this.

Of course this will ruin him. His life is over.

He could do a degree whilst in prison.

He may be brighter than we give him credit for.