On the 9th December 2010, Parliment voted 323 vs 302 in favour of the new highly controversial University Tution Fees structure.
So what is all the fuss about? Who are the main winners and losers? Glad you asked...
Protesters:
The recent riots were disgusting. Spoilt by gangs of idiotic children looking for a "legalised" excuse to smash stuff up, they did no favours for anyone.
Property was damaged, people on both sides were seriously hurt and it didn't have the slightest affect on the vote.
Those who caused the trouble did so delibrately. They are criminals and should be locked up.
Overall Verdict: Losers.
Students:
For UK students, Universities can currently charge up to £3290 per year. Students from poorer backgrounds do not need to pay these fees, but can take out student loans for cost of living. Students who do need to pay can take student loans to cover the cost. Most students leave Uni with £12K-£15K of debt, which is paid back at a rate of 9% of all income above £15K gross per year. Interest is kept in line with inflation so no one pays more than they borrowed in real terms.
The new system is essentially the same, but its 9% of everything above £21K per year, saving students up to £45 per month. Yay!
...oh, and the minor fact that Tution fees can be up to £9K per year, so that over the 30 year lifetime of the loan (wiped clean after 30 years) the majority of students will pay back thousands more than they do now. Darn.
It could be argued that the rise in threshold will mean that the poor will pay less. This, however, depends on the definition of poor. The son of a billionaire, who leaves Uni with several cars and houses from daddy and gets a part time job from his dad's company, giving him a £21K salary as pocket money would be one of the children who would never pay back.
In addition, the £21K is in 2016 terms, which is not that far from £15K in todays money.
Overall Verdict: Losers.
Universities:
Quids in? Nope. The new tution fees will really only cover the huge hole in funding caused by spending cuts. And if the higher fees scare students away they'll end up quids out.
Overall Verdicts: Losers
Lib Dems:
Not a day has gone by since the Lib Dems signed their "deal with the devil" that their popularity hasn't sunk lower and lower. Signing a pledge before the election to scrap tution fees and then becoming part of the government that nearly trebled them has, shockingly, not helped.
Nick Clegg may need a new strategy.
In addition to being at an all time low in opinion polls, the party looks ready to fall apart, with 28 "Yes" votes, 21 "No" votes and 8 "I didn't come in to Politics to have an opinion, I came for the free moats" votes.
Overall Verdict: Losers
Labour:
With the biggest riots in 20 years and alot of unhappy people around, its generally a great time to be in oposition.
Unfortunately for Labour, they have failed to really make the most of a "bad" situation. Although its easy enough to critise, Labour have failed completely to offer any kind of alternative, which is pretty bad. Particularly when even saying "just leave it alone" would have been more popular.
Instead they stand behind a graduate tax, just days after saying a graduate tax could never work.
Overall Verdict: Losers.
Conservatives:
Being the main driving force behind this whole event, and having kicked all other major players into the "losing" catergory, it may be fairly obvious that the only way is up for the Cons. Sure, there will be some political backlash, but the Lib Dems are taking the worse of it and Labour are failing to clear up. More importantly, by the time the elections swing round again this policy will have cleared shed loads of debt and make the Cons come out smelling of roses.
... or will it?
Having masively cut University funding because "there's no money left" the Universities will instead be funded by... the government...?
Sure the students will, eventually, pay back more under the new scheme, but all initial costs will need to be put up by the government. In fact, these initial costs, spent NOW, when the country has no money, will be more than under the old scheme. When the students do start paying back, they will pay back up to £45 per month less. Meaning the initial return, the return now, when the country is desperate for any spare change, will be less.
Even in the long run, on average it is expected that a graduate will need to earn over £45K per year to pay back everything within 30 years. For such large amounts over such a long time, any errors in predictions could mean the government falls far short of its expected returns and as more and more students pass through the system this could lead to an increasing blackhole in funding.
There's only one thing left to say about the Cons then.
Overall Verdict: Losers.
So, you may ask, has anyone won from all this?
Of cause they have.
The Scottish, who after centuries of abuse from the English, can now sit back and grin as the only members of the EU who need to pay for Universities in Scotland are the English (and Welsh and N. Irish).
Good Times.
