THE LIB DEM HALL OF SHAME

The 27 Lib Dems who voted in favour of the tuition fees rise:

 

Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathespey)

Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk)

Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland)

 

The 8 abstainers:

 

Sir Robert Smith (Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine)

John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

 

The 21 who honoured their pledge:

 

Charles Kennedy (Ross Skye and Lochaber)

Sir Menzies Campbell (Fife North East)

Michael Crockart (Edinburgh West) - resigned from govt

Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute)

The top3 can kiss their seats good bye. The SNP don't even have to even try to campaign against them :drama:

 

The two in the middle are touch and go

 

The last 4 are safe in their seats.

1997 - Labour promised not to introduce tuition fees. They introduced tuition fees.

2001 - Labour promised not to increase tuition fees. They trebled tuition fees.

 

I can't speak for the 1992 one, as I don't know enough about that election campaign. But I'm getting fed up of the Lib Dems pathetically trying to dredge up Labour's previous broken promises on tuition fees. Firstly, there's a big difference in scale in pledging to keep fees at the level they are before raising them to £3,000, than there is pledging to scrap fees before raising them to £9,000. Secondly, the fact remains that tuition fees has been one of the Lib Dems' flagship policies for years, from the personal pledges to Clegg sending a video message to the NUS conference in April - these weren't things Labour did before U-turning on their tuition fees policy. Thirdly, Labour's past U-turning is particularly irrelevant in the current political climate, where their current leader wasn't even an MP when the last fees rise happened and where almost all of the people who were in government at the time no longer play any part in Labour's top team (yes, Alan Johnson is one big exception, but he's been forced to accept a graduate tax as Labour's new policy... apart from him, Harriet Harman and Tessa Jowell are the only survivors in the shadow cabinet from then, neither of whom hold briefs remotely connected to University funding). Fourthly, the fact that the Lib Dems are claiming that their U-turn is simply "politics as usual" is remarkable, considering Clegg chose to make a "new, clean politics" the hallmark of his performance in the election debates.

 

The fact is that the Lib Dems gained student votes under false pretences - they knowingly swung certain constituencies in their favour based on their pledge to students, even though they never had any intention on insisting fees would be a deal-breaker in their talks with the Tories. They could've done what the Scottish Lib Dems did when they went into Coalition with Labour in Scotland in 2000 - then, tuition fees was placed "outside of the Coalition", and it was written into their Coalition agreement that Lib Dem MSPs would have the right to campaign and vote according to their consciences on that issue - and consequently, Scotland still has no tuition fees to this day. But Clegg, Laws, Alexander et al decided to put their own interests first, and chose to fight for the AV referendum in order to get more Lib Dem MPs instead of fighting for no rise in tuition fees. Therefore, I'll make no apologies for aggressively campaigning to remove Lib Dems who've broken their promise after knowingly misleading students.

It has gone through. RIP University Education.

Don't be ridiculous. Although this obviously isn't ideal, it won't make a practical bit of difference to most people from the current situation - they'll only pay off more if they can afford to pay off more due to the raising of the threshold from £15,000 to £21,000, and the 30 year expiration clause. As payment levels are graduated (you'll only pay back £5 a month when you're on £21,000 a year, hardly massively taxing) it won't make the slightest bit of difference in all practicality.

 

What WILL hurt university education is the 80% cuts that the doubling/tripling of fees is expected to fill. It doesn't take a genius to realise that that doesn't quite add up, so it disgusts me that students are expected to pay more for a worse service.

So, four wrongs make a right then, is that what we're saying...?? Fukk off... It's about bloody time Election Pledges and manifestos were made LEGALLY BINDING... I'm 100% with Mark Thomas on this... These people are fukkin' scum, and it's little wonder half the country doesn't even bother voting.. I know I never will ever again....... I think it's about time we had a revolution in this country to be honest, consider me now 100% Anarchist....... Fukk the political system, fukk the New World Order... I think I'm gonna download this DDoS thing and start attacking Corporations along with Anonymous.....

I'm not saying any such thing. Look at what I was responding to. There was a claim that this is the first time a party has reneged on a manifesto commitment. I demonstrated that it isn't.

 

And your suggestion that manifesto commitments should be legally binding is nonsense. How would that work with a hung parliament? A coalition, by definition, means that parties will have to make compromises. Do you really think the Tories should be prosecuted because they haven't cut inheritance tax for the very wealthy? Do you really think that MPs should not rebel against their party for fear of prosecution? Show me an MP who claims to agree with every dot and comma of their party's manifesto and I'll show you a liar.

I'm not saying any such thing. Look at what I was responding to. There was a claim that this is the first time a party has reneged on a manifesto commitment. I demonstrated that it isn't.

 

And your suggestion that manifesto commitments should be legally binding is nonsense. How would that work with a hung parliament? A coalition, by definition, means that parties will have to make compromises. Do you really think the Tories should be prosecuted because they haven't cut inheritance tax for the very wealthy? Do you really think that MPs should not rebel against their party for fear of prosecution? Show me an MP who claims to agree with every dot and comma of their party's manifesto and I'll show you a liar.

There's loads of precedent for a party reneging on a manifesto commitment. There's no precedent for a party reneging on its flagship commitment that it made as one of its main promises! You're being very pedantic by pointing to the four key pledges they put on paper as their main ones for this election - the Lib Dems have been renowned for their commitment to abolishing tuition fees and have made a huge song and dance of it every time there's been an election!

After taking the full thing into consideration (and trying not to let my own disdain for the Conservative government cloud my judgement) I have decided that it ain't all that bad. We only have to pay back 9% of the excess after we earn £21k per year. The think I am concerned about is the bursaries; regardless of whether I get a bursary for the duration of my original course or not I really need one to cover the post-graduate course I plan on doing. If it doesn't, I shall be forced to take a different career path for the foreseeable future following my university education, it seems.

NO FUTURE.

tnx alot guyz. u utter cunts.

LMFAO! Prince Charles' car got attacked by protestors :rofl:

 

Talk about two birds with one stone :lol:

 

Theresa May said peaceful protest is acceptable and violence is not.. Well we know what to do then ;)

I can't speak for the 1992 one, as I don't know enough about that election campaign. But I'm getting fed up of the Lib Dems pathetically trying to dredge up Labour's previous broken promises on tuition fees. Firstly, there's a big difference in scale in pledging to keep fees at the level they are before raising them to £3,000, than there is pledging to scrap fees before raising them to £9,000. Secondly, the fact remains that tuition fees has been one of the Lib Dems' flagship policies for years, from the personal pledges to Clegg sending a video message to the NUS conference in April - these weren't things Labour did before U-turning on their tuition fees policy. Thirdly, Labour's past U-turning is particularly irrelevant in the current political climate, where their current leader wasn't even an MP when the last fees rise happened and where almost all of the people who were in government at the time no longer play any part in Labour's top team (yes, Alan Johnson is one big exception, but he's been forced to accept a graduate tax as Labour's new policy... apart from him, Harriet Harman and Tessa Jowell are the only survivors in the shadow cabinet from then, neither of whom hold briefs remotely connected to University funding). Fourthly, the fact that the Lib Dems are claiming that their U-turn is simply "politics as usual" is remarkable, considering Clegg chose to make a "new, clean politics" the hallmark of his performance in the election debates.

 

The fact is that the Lib Dems gained student votes under false pretences - they knowingly swung certain constituencies in their favour based on their pledge to students, even though they never had any intention on insisting fees would be a deal-breaker in their talks with the Tories. They could've done what the Scottish Lib Dems did when they went into Coalition with Labour in Scotland in 2000 - then, tuition fees was placed "outside of the Coalition", and it was written into their Coalition agreement that Lib Dem MSPs would have the right to campaign and vote according to their consciences on that issue - and consequently, Scotland still has no tuition fees to this day. But Clegg, Laws, Alexander et al decided to put their own interests first, and chose to fight for the AV referendum in order to get more Lib Dem MPs instead of fighting for no rise in tuition fees. Therefore, I'll make no apologies for aggressively campaigning to remove Lib Dems who've broken their promise after knowingly misleading students.

But what would Labour have done if they had won the election? Would they have dismissed the findings of the report they commissioned?

 

A graduate tax sounds attractive at first but what about people who get a degree and then go and get a job in Germany or the US for example? They would pay nothing. Under the government's proposals, there is a limit on how much will be paid back. Under a graduate tax there is no such limit. It would just be time limited. The only difference - and I agree that it is a significant difference - is that the tuition fee debt would be taken into consideration in a mortgage application.

 

Just bear in mind how much worse it would be if there was a majority Tory government. There would be no limit on tuition fees. There would be no obligations on universities wishing to charge more than £6,000 per year. The threshold for repayment would be going up every five years, not every year.

 

Are the current proposals perfect? No, of course they're not. Could they be worse? They most certainly could.

 

Have the Lib Dems come out of this well? Of course not. They have made a complete hash of it. Nick Clegg needs to show that coalition government can work. However, he doesn't need to appear so enthusiastic about everything the coalition government does. He should be more open when the Lib Dems feel obliged to support a policy which they would not support if they had a majority or were in a stronger position within the coalition.

 

In future election campaigns all parties should be under more pressure to say which of their policies are sacrosanct and which might be open to negotiation. In the last election Nick Clegg was asked many times which party he would deal with. He said he would talk first to the party who "won" the election. That's what he did. The other party leaders were rarely asked what they would do in the event of a hung parliament. Even when they were, they were able to get away with dismissing the possibility without being pressed to answer the question.

After taking the full thing into consideration (and trying not to let my own disdain for the Conservative government cloud my judgement) I have decided that it ain't all that bad. We only have to pay back 9% of the excess after we earn £21k per year. The think I am concerned about is the bursaries; regardless of whether I get a bursary for the duration of my original course or not I really need one to cover the post-graduate course I plan on doing. If it doesn't, I shall be forced to take a different career path for the foreseeable future following my university education, it seems.

Quite right. The proposals aren't great but they aren't as bad as some people are making out. TBH, I'm not sure what the implications are for post grad students. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Soooo I'm expected to do a four year course at Uni (£36,000), pay for living and accommodation for four years (£20,000) for an education that has had it's budget torn apart, only to pay it back when I enter my profession, (despite the fact that there are NO JOBS ANYWAY). ooo I can't wait for the days when I'm £56,000 in debt with no job! I HEART THIS COUNTRY.

 

 

Now, if anyone is telling me that the rise in fees will benefit me, you can seriously go and fuck yourself.

The police are kettling in over 1000 people at Westminster Bridge right now, people are passing out and everything and of course the media aren't reporting it <_<

 

Gotta love Twitter and what the internet can do nowadays, you can't keep these away anymore. :D

The police are kettling in over 1000 people at Westminster Bridge right now, people are passing out and everything and of course the media aren't reporting it <_<

 

Gotta love Twitter and what the internet can do nowadays, you can't keep these away anymore. :D

You should watch that video from the last protest, where police on horses charged at students. It's sick & wrong! (What makes it worst is that one of the chiefs in London actually DENIED it happening! :lol: )

Soooo I'm expected to do a four year course at Uni (£36,000), pay for living and accommodation for four years (£20,000) for an education that has had it's budget torn apart, only to pay it back when I enter my profession, (despite the fact that there are NO JOBS ANYWAY). ooo I can't wait for the days when I'm £56,000 in debt with no job! I HEART THIS COUNTRY.

Now, if anyone is telling me that the rise in fees will benefit me, you can seriously go and fuck yourself.

You do realise you won't pay anything until you're earning £21K a year, and even then you'll only be paying £5 a month?

You do realise you won't pay anything until you're earning £21K a year, and even then you'll only be paying £5 a month?

I'm still going to be paying back at least 36 grand however.

I'm still going to be paying back at least 36 grand however.

If you're stuck on £21K a year then you'd only pay back £3600 overall. The loan repayments get cancelled if you don't pay them back fully within 30 years - so you'll only notice the difference if you get well off enough to pay back at a higher rate.

You should watch that video from the last protest, where police on horses charged at students. It's sick & wrong! (What makes it worst is that one of the chiefs in London actually DENIED it happening! :lol: )

Yep I saw all of that. The thing is though this is only the START of it all and I agree it doesn't matter how much you're paying its still gonna be £36K you're gonna pay and for a WORSE education. If I was going now then I couldn't go at all because they won't give any money for people who studied in my field.

I'm really interested to the reactions of the 3 devolved governments.

 

I know that Wales is planning to pay fees for Welsh students. I'm obviously most concerned about Scotland, and what our reaction will be.

 

The SNP won the election on killing the Graduate Endowment Fee. I'm interested in what their plan is. Do they hike fees for the English? Do they introduce something that affects the Scottish/EU students and the English/Welsh etc.

 

I'm just glad none of this directly affects me as i have no plans to continue my studies on this continent, this is going to be a very messy week for the devolved countries.

What WILL hurt university education is the 80% cuts that the doubling/tripling of fees is expected to fill. It doesn't take a genius to realise that that doesn't quite add up, so it disgusts me that students are expected to pay more for a worse service.

 

The planned changes to GCSE’s and A-Levels will decimate the number of qualified applicants for university places. The days of coursework and modules are drawing to an end; grades solely determined by rigorous linear examinations should bring back some reality to Higher Education. ^_^

But what would Labour have done if they had won the election? Would they have dismissed the findings of the report they commissioned?

 

A graduate tax sounds attractive at first but what about people who get a degree and then go and get a job in Germany or the US for example? They would pay nothing. Under the government's proposals, there is a limit on how much will be paid back. Under a graduate tax there is no such limit. It would just be time limited. The only difference - and I agree that it is a significant difference - is that the tuition fee debt would be taken into consideration in a mortgage application.

 

You have the same problem with student loans though... There are precious few people who have moved abroad that are actually paying anything back into the system as it stands now (I personally know people who are now working in Australia and Canada who are paying absolutely sweet FA of their student loan back simply because the Student Loans Company has absolutely no bloody idea where they are, but, fukk it, they've managed to beat the system, so good on them I say...), so, I don't see how this changes anything.. At least a Graduate Tax wouldn't have you paying back interest would it...? Nor would it be a "debt", and isn't "debt" supposed to be bad? Isn't "debt" and the Toxic Debts that the banks are responsible for creating the whole reason why this country's fukked in the first place...? So, being in "debt" is bad for the country, but perfectly okay for generations of students to be in "debt" their whole working lives... Naaah, it's stupid... A graduate tax is fair, a graduate tax is totally based on ability to pay, a graduate tax wouldn't squeeze the middle-earners the way this piece of crap does... And middle-earners would be the vast majority of graduates... So, that means your teacher, lecturers, doctors, etc being absolutely fukked an paying back a significantly greater proportion of their wages than some City Slicker does.... Bugger that.... <_<

 

Let's just put this whole fees thing to the side for a moment here, because that's not even the greatest scandal of this whole thing - the biggest scandal is the up to 80 FUKKIN PER CENT CUTS IN TEACHING BUDGETS

 

I mean, really, just what the hell is the justification for that then....? Disgusting.....