We are winning the arguments.

We are winning the people's ears.

Not just on the pages, but with every peaceful demonstration we do.

With every flashmob (like you saw today at oxford street) we will educate with our flyers and our words.

You can not have people with masters degrees from the LSE in economics driving white vans because there aren't enough jobs available.

They will organize and mobilize.

#solidarity #WeAreEveryWhere

"will make it incredibly difficult for students from poorer backgrounds to continue their education - even if the fees are not to be paid up front."

Erm... Why?

"perhaps it's because, with 18 millionaires in the cabinet, his government comes from a completely different planet than most of us"

In my experience that is exactly the planet many UCl students.

All of you should take a walk to Somerstown very bear the UCL Campus (have any of you even heard of it?) and take a good look around the estates there. And then say in good conscience that taxpayers money should be spent on you instead of those people.

"Furthermore, cuts to the Education Maintenance Allowance, as well as the trebling of tuition fees, will make it incredibly difficult for students from poorer backgrounds to continue their education - even if the fees are not to be paid up front."

I believe this is the misconception the PM referred to - if I'm hearing what the coalition are saying correctly (it helps to listen to them), the choice to triple fees will come at a cost to unis who take it up, and students from poorer backgrounds will subsequently benefit from this cost.

I fully agree cuts to the arts and humanities is a ideologically-driven travesty but misrepresenting the reforms by alluding to only the extremes does not aid your cause.

These protests are about the privatisation to universities and absolutely disgusting that they have removed ALL funding from humanities and arts when it creates a sizeable chunk of the economy.

Personally, the coalitions persistant use of 'difficult choices/decisions' is reason enough for me to take to the streets.

athirat, the essential goal of the Tory proposal is to marketize the higher education system. That is, turn it into a system in which there are a variety of vendors (universities) offering products (degrees) of differing qualities at different costs. In such a system it is inevitable (yes: inevitable, this is axiomatic to the economics of a market) that poorer people will receive lower quality goods while richer get better. In simple terms, we will end up with a system in which the top universities are almost uniformly populated by the children of the rich, while the children of the poor go to low quality universities, if at all.

FA: you say "it is perfectly fair that I make a contribution". Oh really? Assuming your degree was three years, that'll be £27,000 please. Can HM Revenue & Customs be expecting a cheque from you sometime soon?

1WayOrAnother: "I object to them being tarred with being middle class."

But they don't have to pay it back if they dont earn more than £21,000 a year. That seems like a fairly middle class salary!

Every pound they save by doing this would be better spent on the healthcare, crime fighting or tax cuts for the poorest rather than people will be middle class when they have to pay up!

Firstly, the UK education system is already deeply and unfairly divided along class lines, with a high percentage of those who attend ‘public’ schools going on to attend the ‘top’ universities, such as Oxbridge. Our currently cabinet evidences this.

Secondly, the students of today are the doctors, nurses, social workers, teachers, scientists, town planners, engineers etc. etc. of tomorrow. If we do not invest in education now, there will be nobody to save lives, improve social conditions, find the cure for cancer, build roads, and teach children etc. etc. tomorrow. What will we do then?

Furthermore, the humanities – including languages – provide a valuable, though in some cases indirect, contributions to our economy. Students who are trained in these subjects are trained to communicate and to think outside the box. These students go on to work in various professions from education, to politics, to advertising. Not to mention the fact that the very foundation of the humanities is what makes us human – the clue is in the name!

Fair play to you Matthew, keep up the good work.

Ricardo, what a red herring. the cuts are happening in education, but also in healthcare, and other social services. £21,000 might not be that middle class if you support a family and live in London. The point has already been made about how young people won't get mortgages because of their debt and ridiculously inflated house prices.

Its funny how this country beats around the bush blaming immigrants, the unemployed, "benefit scroungers" when when we have a government of benefactors who have companies based in Cayman Islands and Monaco. Ironic also that the right wing press points the finger at students being elitist.

The UK education system is renowned but is about to take a huge beating from cuts and the immigration laws (since we used to rinse non-EU students for extortionate fees). The huge fees will not even make up for this, but they will be enough to dissuade people from studying here. Note how most other large economies are not cutting education spending - this is the work of a radical government with an ideological, not practical, agenda.

I congratulate the occupiers, while not agreeing with them entirely: they are acting in the best tradition of student demonstration.

I was at university from 2000 to 2003 when there was largely nothing to protest about (that deposing Hussein and the Taliban was wrong less a campus truism than many would have you believe).

"students are taxpayers, too"

No the aren't, unitl they start working. They are FUNDED by taxpayers.

"Education is a public good and should be funded by all of us"

Education is a public good to a certain extent, but it i the individual that benefits most. Why in that case is it unfair for the individual to contribute most?

"tax where the richest pay the most"

They already do. The top 10% of earners in the UK pay 42% of total income taxes.

"The right-wing argument that you can cut your way out of a recession has begun to be pulled apart by economists across the world."

Last time i checked it was the Keynesian/Leftist dogma that loading more debt on economies into a debt crisis that was being pulled apart. Growth drives demand, not the other way around.

"As students, we ought to have been given a fair hearing and a fair response to our concerns"

You probably would have, if you had given the coalition's plans the same hearing. As it is, most people are turned off by the selfish, spoilt and destructive nature of these protests. I know I am.

Cable was first against the rise, then he was for it, then he spoke of abstaining and now (with a bit of arm twisting after his blunder of the other day) he's for it again! My goodness, he's some decision maker!

The coalition corrupt now try and promote the increases as in the best interests of students by pointing out they don't have to pay up front and by raising the threshold to £21K. I'm slightly mystified as to how that's going to help the deficit that Cameron said he'd clear in no time at all?

It's the creation of a whole new wave of social mobility, Cameron and co know that it will create a wave of salaried positions for bright talent at a shade under the threshold which qualified students will be forced to take, new cheap labour. Whereas of course, the wealthy 'talent' will get mummy and daddy to clear their debt,leaving them free to take better paid positions as they are free of financial worry. Talent will be determined by wealth.

Those from less well off backgrounds who take the brave decision to aspire to higher wages over the threshold will be steadily crucified
by year on year increases as the tapers increase at each budget, not to mention how when the banks get their teeth into it, interest rates will rise. Universities won't be able to offer the much promised bursaries; be under no illusion this is social mobility of the Cameron kind. The door will be open only to those of a similar ilk to those who advocate these policies.

The more worrying trend is the kind of doctors, accountants and lawyers this will create, they will only communicate with their 'own' kind. This is all about the creation of clear divisions in society.

Sorry it just stinks!

Best regards for you all,

Looking forward to your visiting.

http://www.1shopping.us/

The student occupations should be applauded because our coalition government wishes ideologically to reform English universities, so that profit becomes the only motive for education.

This is being achieved by a double whammy of up to 100% cuts in block teaching grants, while simultaneously proposing a tripling of annual fees for students.

This tripling of fees does not include accommodation costs, books, study materials, travel, cost of living etc, so the debt figures for students being cited in the media over these proposals (of up to UK£27,000 for a three year degree course) would only be a proportion of a student's overall debt when they complete.

Currently our universities operate by mixing individual contributions with some public funding and this ensures we all support the right to education for the common good of society, while also placing a burden (average current overall debt for a london-based student stands at around £30,000) on the motivated individuals who benefit.

Removing the public contribution (that acknowledges our acting for the common good) will impact the integrity of our society and it will reduce social mobility even more in this country, while creating a two tiered system that penalises students in England above Scotland and Wales. It will also not save us any money as the Million+ think tank reported today. In fact it may cost us more.

So why are we doing it? It's a lose lose situation for the majority of us in UK, and only our students seem to realise this, while the rest of us sleep walk into a slightly nastier and greedier and more selfish world.

@Tyler

>>students are taxpayers, too
" No the aren't, unitl they start working. They are FUNDED by taxpayers. "

Err yes they are, the vast majority will be working in holidays, weekends, evenings, as I had to, just to make ends meet even as a fully grant maintained student in the early 90s.

"most people are turned off by the selfish, spoilt and destructive nature of these protests. I know I am."

And you speak for most people do you or just yourself? Don't act as a mouthpiece when you are just voicing your own opinions. I myself am delighted to see some opposition to the ideological cuts being demonstrated - I know plenty of others too who feel the same way. The cuts vs spending your out of deficit argument is still very much alive and unresolved last I saw, whichever side you take.

Why should my taxes fund students university education, so that they can earn more than me in the future, when I was DENIED a university education back in 1987 by virtue of being handicapped?

Lots of applications, no acceptances, despite straight A grades in my A Levels.

So history, literature, and philosophy are useless? As Fontenel said, "On traite ordinairement d'inutile ce qu'on ignore."

In response to:

"The government asks, disingenuously, why the low-paid should have to pay for our education. It is an absurd question: students are taxpayers, too, and the nation benefits collectively from an educated population"

I don't think you have understood this comment, disingenuously. Graduates are tax-payers, students are not (with the obvious exception of those that work while they study, but that is not important for the point that I am making). Whilst you are a student, you have a loan that covers the cost of your tuition - education is therefore free at the point of consumption. Under the new system, you only have to start paying back your loan when you are earning more than £21,000 pa, thus shifting the financial burden of higher education from generally worse off tax-payers, to wealthy graduates. Note, the debt is not the same as a credit card debt, which is a key point that people often overlook, it is income-contingent (you pay 9% of what you earn over 21,000 toward repaying your loan back each year). The implication of this is that the size of your loan, or the price of your education, does not affect the size of your repayments, only the number of them.

Ultimately, we would all like education to be free for all, but nothing is free. Funds for the cost of higher education have to come from somewhere, and the introduction of a higher variable fee, in alignment with student-loans, is the fairest, most efficient source available.

The big problem, in my opinion, is that prospective university students do not understand the dynamics of the scheme in place - they think that the debt they acquire is more severe than it is. This could put people off going.

The other problem is the size of the maintenance loan, which is not high enough. I think that it would be more effective if the protesters accepted that the fees are going to rise, and used this as leverage to persuade the government to increase the size of the maintenance loan, and introduce a policy that insists lecturers publish student satisfaction ratings, so that the quality of teaching improves.

Matthew Hall thank you for your very informative, intelligent reply to David Cameron, I support the students action and believe the Coalition government is taking The Great British Education away from the people and putting it into the hands of the rich privatised companies whose only aim is to make themselves richer. The national Health Service has suffered and continues to suffer as a result of private company contracts and business Managers. the same will happen to Education if we allow them to.

Best regards for you all,

Looking forward to your visiting.

http://www.1shopping.us/

Best regards for you all,

Looking forward to your visiting.

http://www.1shopping.us/

It's true that the poor shouldn't have to pay for the university education of middle-class children. The children of the poor should be attending university themselves, in significant numbers, free of charge. We need more university graduates, not fewer. But as the cynical reactionaries understand, it is by making university an impossible dream for the less affluent that the Tories can claim free university education is a middle class luxury. What will be stigmatised in this manner next? A -levels (the attack on the EMA is already a step in that direction)? Indeed, why stop at universities? Should the poor pay so the middle classes can go to secondary school? Maybe state education should stop at 15, since only the future university students really need to continue beyond that level. Wouldn't demanding payment from the families of such embryonic high-earners be, as Nick Clegg is fond of saying, "fair"? Don't be a dupe--The Tories work through resentment--the middle classes don't want to pay for "benefits" they don't get, the lower classes don't want to pay for university education denied them, soon no one gets anything while private companies and shareholders get wealthier and wealthier. DEMONSTRATE NOW! Well done, Matthew Hall, and everyone who's with you, throughout the UK!

It is interesting to note the importance put on education back in 2006. He ruled out Tony Blair's idea of Education, Education, Education and replaced them with his most important 3 words: 'NHS'; he said.

When talking of labour he went on to say:

"I back the NHS because I believe in it."

"Standing up for your beliefs is what real substance is about."

"But in politics, it's also about telling the truth."

"Not everything that Labour have done since 1997 is bad."

"People don't want us to turn the clock back."

"They want us to improve the bad things, yes."

"But they also want us to keep the good things."

"Like Bank of England independence."

"Like the minimum wage. We'll keep it and, when we can, we'll increase it."

"Where Labour do the right thing, like those education reforms, we'll back them."

"That is real substance."

"Standing up for what you believe."

"Putting your country first."

Has the man been affected by some sort of head trauma since then I wonder?