I don't think anyone pays too much attention to the twists and turns of an opposition party. What's important is that Labour has a well worked out policy for when it resumes power in 2015 or before.

With mortgage rates at all-time lows, now may be a great time to refinance -- if you meet new stringent criteria. Search online for "123 Mortgage Refinance" they got me the 3.21% rate even with my not so good credit history.

I would love it if someone could explain to me in what way a graduate tax would be effectively different or better than the system proposed by the coalition government. It is a graduate tax in all but name! A tiered level of repayments equates to a tax on earnings i.e. in both systems the more you earn the more you pay. In fact the coalitions proposal is better for several reasons. (1) If a student's course costs £6k then that's all he/she pays back rather than paying a tax for life. (2) The graduate loan will be written off if unpaid after 30-years, therefore, no risk of bailiffs, no risk of overhanging commitments as in other forms of loan. It is a government backed loan and, therefore, like RBS and the other banks, graduates will be bailout if they can't pay it back! (3) If the government or private sector decides there are not enough science or engineering graduates to help drive economic growth then the government can subsidise these courses more or private firms can offer scholarships to attract more students to study the courses they need graduates in. (4) The student fees route is not unfair to students from poorer backgrounds because, firstly, they do not have to pay back loans until they graduate and, secondly, the repayments depend on how much they earn once they graduate and so will not influence the ability of a student to fund themselves through university.

The argument here between student fees and graduate tax is irrelevant, the only valid argument is the one about whether university education should be fully funded by the government and, therefore, by all tax payers because it could be argued that a more educated work force benefits the whole country through greater economic growth. But try argung that in the current sovereign debt ridden times!

6-9K is for each year of your course, a normal degree being 3 years, which = 18-27k, but medical degrees can be up to 6 years equating at 36-54k.
I think many students and parents, who are above the free school meal threshold, will find this kind of future debt unacceptable.

write-off: I think the graduate tax may be marginally more effective in ensuring young people have no hope of saving for a house deposit, a pension or a future. I don’t expect it matters much either way.
--------
I do not see how that makes any sense. Unless it has sth to do with your name...
When applying for a home loan, and you are asked what is your debt level? And you answer, nil, then a loan will be easier to get.

The villainy of this rise in tuition fees (£27-36K for fees alone, so probably £45-50k debts; and let's face it the best unis will charge £9k a year) is that it lumbers young people with such high debts with the knowledge they are gonna need the same again for a deposit unless house prices resume their crash.

Compare that with just ten years ago. £5k deposit and about £7k student debt. What the older generation and the banking profession in particular is doing to the young is criminal.

And can we quit with the free market fetishists out there, claiming people will assess in a cold calculated and reason manner what will be economically best for them?

Millions will be emotionally scared of debt that is two to three times higher than their dad's annual wages. You live in a dreamworld if you think the low-mid income families think like Adam Smith.

nla630: The student fees route is not unfair to students from poorer backgrounds because they do not have to pay back loans until they graduate.
me:
Yes, that is already the system. But they still have the debt. But trebled. Complete straw man that one. God knows why the coalition go on about this, other than they obviously convince some people like you.
---------
Secondly, the repayments depend on how much they earn once they graduate.

They still have high levels of debt. This sounds like those TV ads for loans, saying "Wow they have reduced my monthly repayments!" They obviously believe a lot of debtors are morons. The monthly bill falls, the time to repay is extended possibly double or treble the original repayment schedule, meaning far more is repaid. Not good to anyone but a dimwit. And massive debt level against your name.
-------
The argument here between student fees and graduate tax is irrelevant.
me:
Do not agree. The fee system is ok at low costs. But it is being ratcheted up, which was always a concern. (Labour introduced 20p prescription charges in 1976-7, then the Tories upped it to £1.40 within a year of taking power) A graduate tax that is staggered by ability (say 0.5%, rising to 2.5% for top earners) to pay will mean those going into lower paid professions (£25-30K) will not have onerous payments, and significantly, will not have a debt pile on the credit risk profile for 30 years. That is crucial. And to another point coming, we as taxpayers should subsidise wealth and culture-creating education as we always have.
-------------------
The only valid argument is the one about whether university education should be fully funded by the government.
me:
No, it is not. This is escalating. In the US, typical fees are $35,000 per year. We end up there within a few years if we accept this policy. A US friend of mine earns over £21K (not by much) and pays £300 per month in repayments - for the next 30 years!!!
-----------------
Try arguing for public funding in these sovereign debt ridden times.
me:
The sovereign debt times have come about as we taxpayers have bailed out the private sector.
personal debt in the UK - not govt debt (58% of GDP) - personal is over 100% of GDP.
Corporation and other company debt is closer to 200%.
Govt debt is the only thing that kept the economy alive last year. The private sector needs to deleverage, but the government is trying to force us to shop (0.5% interest on our deposits), while it deleverages.
As Nick Clegg said in the election: You do not solve debt problems by creating debt for individuals. He was right!
WAS!

Ed the real deal. Mr Posh you can console your self with bullying Mr Pledge into voting for higher fees.

Would anyone be willing to give the average student a mortgage considering the debt our children will leave University with ?

@CrISpY DuCk, Maybe they should just call it a personalised graduate tax, then it would solve the problem the lib dems have of going back on their pledge and the possible issue of mortgage applications. This is effectively a graduate tax, it's just politics that's stopping them calling it that!!

Of course with a graduate tax, everyone who has had a free university education in the past should pay, not just new graduates.

Should raise a lot more money.