This is one of the most disingenuous things I've ever read. The repayment system pre-2012 was EXACTLY THE SAME as the repayment system after 2012, only the threshold for repayment was increased at the same time as the reform. That doesn't transform it from 'instant debt' to a tax - that's doublespeak at a level even the Lib Dems defending it at the time would've blanched at.

 

That's not how I understood it. I'm sure students would know better, of course, but didn't it hang over each student as an outstanding liability that didn't start to be repaid until wages hit 21k or something along with any student loans? I certainly know ex-students in their 30's paying out and struggling with a debt a decade old, and on a salary that is far below the national average.

 

I thought the major change was it wasn't a debt liability so much as an extra amount of tax paid later in life on wages over 28k or more? Or earlier if you walk right into a high paid job?

My understanding of both systems was that it was similar to the Scottish System in that loans are paid back as a % of earnings above £x. Currently I believe I repay 7% of everything I earn over £18.5k (roughly). Which is currently working out at £1/month for me.

This is one of the most disingenuous things I've ever read. The repayment system pre-2012 was EXACTLY THE SAME as the repayment system after 2012, only the threshold for repayment was increased at the same time as the reform. That doesn't transform it from 'instant debt' to a tax - that's doublespeak at a level even the Lib Dems defending it at the time would've blanched at.

It is NOT a debt in the normal sense of the word.

 

First, it is written off if the person dies before they have repaid it. It is also written off after a fixed period if they have not repaid it all. Finally, and very importantly, it is NOT counted as a debt when a potential lender calculates the size of mortgage a person can afford.

 

Of course, it should also be remembered that the report on student finance (commissioned by Labour safe in the knowledge that they would probably be out of office by the time it reported) recommended no limit on the size of tuition fees. The Tories were happy to accept that, the Lib Dems were not.

It is NOT a debt in the normal sense of the word.

 

First, it is written off if the person dies before they have repaid it. It is also written off after a fixed period if they have not repaid it all. Finally, and very importantly, it is NOT counted as a debt when a potential lender calculates the size of mortgage a person can afford

That's the point I was making - all of this was the case before 2010 as well. None of that changed after fees were tripled apart from shifts in the thresholds.

That's not how I understood it. I'm sure students would know better, of course, but didn't it hang over each student as an outstanding liability that didn't start to be repaid until wages hit 21k or something along with any student loans? I certainly know ex-students in their 30's paying out and struggling with a debt a decade old, and on a salary that is far below the national average.

 

I thought the major change was it wasn't a debt liability so much as an extra amount of tax paid later in life on wages over 28k or more? Or earlier if you walk right into a high paid job?

For those who went to uni pre-2013 it was something repaid once you earned over 16k at a lower rate and written off after 25 years, not counted as a liability. After 2013 it is something repaid at a rate of 9% of what you earn over 21k and written off after 30 years, not counted as a liability. It didn't transform from an 'instant debt' to a tax once the fees rise came in.

The 21k threshold makes far more sense than the old 16k did as it means a lot of graduates aren't immediately paying it back on a lot of (often unstable) graduate jobs.

 

My issue with the post-2012 system is twofold:

 

1) The new threshold would be all well and good if it weren't for the fact that the total amount payable went through the roof

 

2) Very few students or prospective students were aware of any difference other than the headline figure that they'd pay three times more to go to university than their older siblings. You would expect the sheer burden of that figure to put off a lot of prospective students from going, and I'm incredibly suspicious of any stat that shows more people from lower income families are going to university than ever before.

For the watch.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/jerem...d-10399272.html

I really wonder what on earth anyone thinks they achieve by briefing that story.

Paid my £3 to sign up as a Labour 'supporter' and at the moment I'm backing Yvette and Stella.

 

Go easy on me, I'm new at this.

I really hope Corbyn doesn't win (not that I think he will) but all this talk of 'surge' and 'Coup d'état' is making me think it is becoming a realistic possibility.

Paid my £3 to sign up as a Labour 'supporter' and at the moment I'm backing Yvette and Stella.

 

Go easy on me, I'm new at this.

I'm swaying the same way, so not too many arguments here.

I hope for Labour's sake Corbyn does not get elected. It will be an absolute disaster.

 

While I'm a Tory at heart, there are lots of their policies I disagree on, but two strong parties is only healthy. Corbyn will send the party backwards, the internal squabbles will be unbearable.

I hope for Labour's sake Corbyn does not get elected. It will be an absolute disaster.

 

While I'm a Tory at heart, there are lots of their policies I disagree on, but two strong parties is only healthy. Corbyn will send the party backwards, the internal squabbles will be unbearable.

 

Which do you think is the best of the 3 other candidates?

Meanwhile, Labour continue to have amnesia about what the word "opposition" means, after tonight abstaining on a vote on welfare cuts. Had they voted against, it would've been defeated. The party which is supposed to represent the poor is now actively contributing to throwing people into poverty.

Had they voted against, it would've been defeated.

Oh COME ON Danny, this is nonsense of the worst kind. Those 22 Tory MPs that weren't there weren't voting against the bill, they were paired. If there were even the slightest hint that the 22 Labour MPs honour-bound to not vote given their opposing number were unable to vote were going to go back on their word, they would have been forced to attend. There's only one way you defeat a government with a majority which doesn't have any rebels - it's winning an election, not playing childish games by hiding in cupboards before a vote.

Oh COME ON Danny, this is nonsense of the worst kind. Those 22 Tory MPs that weren't there weren't voting against the bill, they were paired. If there were even the slightest hint that the 22 Labour MPs honour-bound to not vote given their opposing number were unable to vote were going to go back on their word, they would have been forced to attend. There's only one way you defeat a government with a majority which doesn't have any rebels - it's winning an election, not playing childish games by hiding in cupboards before a vote.

 

Who says? There are going to be many Tory MPs who quietly have enough foresight to know it's not a good idea to have their names dipped in blood if ever these cuts become unpopular.

 

The bottom line is if every Labour MP had voted against, there wouldn't be welfare cuts. Now, there will be. Despite the bullshit that prats like Chuka Umunna have been peddling, their main job is not to just get "Labour into power" as an end in itself and get cushy jobs for themselves, - their job is to stand up for the poorest people, rather than actively enabling cuts to their benefits.

Edited July 20, 20159 yr by Danny

Who says? There are going to be many Tory MPs who quietly have enough foresight to know it's not a good idea to have their names dipped in blood if ever these cuts become unpopular.

 

The bottom line is if every Labour MP had voted against, there wouldn't be welfare cuts. Now, there will be. Despite the bullshit that prats like Chuka Umunna have been peddling, their main job is not to just get "Labour into power" as an end in itself and get cushy jobs for themselves, - their job is to stand up for the poorest people, rather than actively enabling cuts to their benefits.

Christ, are we counting Tory MPs under the 76% now? I can't wait until we get a list of these non-voting Tory MPs who have mysteriously become pro-welfare converts.

 

No, the bottom line is that if every Labour MP had voted against, every Tory MP would have voted for. And if they had been unable to get every Tory MP back in time, they would have abolished the pairing system to ensure that it hadn't happened again then resubmitted the bill with a minor amendment. Back at square one. It's the height of disingenuity to pretend that Labour can in practice defeat a government bill which *doesn't have any rebels*!

Christ, are we counting Tory MPs under the 76% now? I can't wait until we get a list of these non-voting Tory MPs who have mysteriously become pro-welfare converts.

 

No, the bottom line is that if every Labour MP had voted against, every Tory MP would have voted for. And if they had been unable to get every Tory MP back in time, they would have abolished the pairing system to ensure that it hadn't happened again then resubmitted the bill with a minor amendment. Back at square one. It's the height of disingenuity to pretend that Labour can in practice defeat a government bill which *doesn't have any rebels*!

 

Are you really pretending government rebellions never happen?

Are you really pretending government rebellions never happen?

Not at all. Which is why I referred to government bills which don't have any rebels. This bill had no rebels. This bill was never going to have rebels. When the list of the 22 Tory MPs who were absent for the vote is released, they will almost all to a number be MPs with consistent records of voting to cut welfare, most probably in safe seats, who were not absent for reasons of registering discontent. This was not a bill Labour could have defeated the government on. At all.

Not at all. Which is why I referred to government bills which don't have any rebels. This bill had no rebels. This bill was never going to have rebels. When the list of the 22 Tory MPs who were absent for the vote is released, they will almost all to a number be MPs with consistent records of voting to cut welfare, most probably in safe seats, who were not absent for reasons of registering discontent. This was not a bill Labour could have defeated the government on. At all.

 

Um, except the arithmetic says otherwise!!! 308 MPs voted for it. If all Labour MPs had joined with other MPs in voting against, it would've been defeated. I'm genuinely not understanding what your argument is. You continually stating that the Tories have a majority doesn't change the fact that they didn't have an absolute majority on this occasion, and that welfare cuts are now only happening because of Labour.

Edited July 20, 20159 yr by Danny