As far as i'm aware they DO still instruct the parents to contribute to university costs, for their maintenance costs,(money to live on & rent etc) but thats if they are good earners,(students have to fill in all their own earnings etc if any- AND their parents earnings, if any- BUT Student Finance England cannot then force them to actually give their contribution to their adult child- i have a son who said his friends girlfriend (they were at uni together) were Supposed to pay quite a bit towards her living expences,but in the end they wouldnt cough up and she needed 2 or 3 jobs to supplement her.The students with parents on benefits get most allowed towards maintenance grant, but even then they dont always receive the highest awards.
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Rachel Reeves said *WHAT*!
(92 Posts)LAst night I discovered that Rachel Reeves, I think in the context of being interviewed about student loans, had this to say:
"It is not right that people who don't go to university bear the cost for others to"
I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that.
Leaving aside the point which I have made over and over again, that taxation doesn't fund spending because:
1) all money comes from the state, either by way of its direct spending on goods and services or via commercial bank loans, made under licence from the state.
2) Spending comes before taxation as without state spending money there would be no money to tax back
So no-one but the state itself is bearing the cost of University education.
Reeves' statement seems to me to be to be contradicting the Labour principles behind the provision of 'public goods' one of which is universal education. But, worse than that, it is promoting an attitude which has no logic. There are lots of services provided by the state which not everyone benefits from; we don't all use the courts, we don't all make heavy demands on the NHS, some people pay for private health services and don't use it al all, we don't all have children in state schools (understand that I'm using 'we' to encompass the whole UK population) to name but a few examples.
Reeves' statement makes it seem reasonable that people should complain and feel resentful about the state financing services which they themselves don't use. Where on earth is her 'reasoning' meant to lead us?
Are we to make an annual declaration of the state financed services we do use and receive a tax rebate to cover the cost of services we don't use?
Is it permission to resent and demonise those who do make more use of state provision than we do? (and heaven knows, there's more than enough of that going on already)
Is it move towards the privatisation and marketisation of all services so we can choose and pay for whichever ones we need (if we can afford it)?
Of course, since Thatcher, there has been an ideological move towards privatisation of as much state provision as governments can get away with because that is a driving feature of the neoliberal economic strategy which has informed government policy since then. It is still ongoing. How many people are able to get NHS dental treatment? How many private care providers are there, the numbers increasing as councils become more and more cash strapped?
I realise that there are differences of opinion over the balance between private and state funded services but I have always regarded Labour as. at heart, being in favour of state provision to ensure that all citizens have access to essential services.
That Reeves' apparent defence of the student loans which impose a heavy long term burden on those aspiring to better themselves through a university education and who in part comprise the teachers, nurses and doctors who are vital to the health and wellbeing of the population really worries me.
But her implication that a university education is a personal indulgence which doesn't deserve the support of the government and state support can be justifiably resented by those who don't go to university utterly astounds and sickens me.
I don't think Reeves has a single vaguely left wing, Labour principled bone in her body, she is in the wrong party and is totally unsuitable for high office in a Labour government.
If SFE decide a parent must contribute then they should be able to deduct that from the parents earnings & pay out to the student so that they cant just say no.
Riversidegirl
I worked in a County Council student system for more years than I dare admit! Went through the whole caboodle: FE maintenance grants, discretionary grants, student grants, student loan trialling, THEN they decided to remove the whole system to Glasgow and it became Student Loans. We all told the government it would never work. I loved my job, loved looking after the students and their parents. Some were obnoxious, and knew their rights, but the majority were grateful that their children (and sometimes themselves) were receiving a free education. Goodness knows how much money has gone down the pan through fraud, wastage, emigration, etc. But as the high ups always said (to our anger) "it's not our money". And that's why we are in this mess.
Whoops, added this then deleted it in error. There was of course the parental contribution if they earned , or had taxable savings, over a certain amount. But there still is, although it seems more complicated now. And with so many young folk emigrating, or so they say, the loans will never be repaid.
The whole issue has cost as much as if we fully funded every student, which was pointed out before it all started.
And how can Scotland not charge? Perhaps it's all that money we are giving their government?
As i said- the student AND the parents are still assessed for their maintenance grant, this is'nt a thing of the past. My son gets reassessed every year of his course.
And how can Scotland not charge? Perhaps it's all that money we are giving their government?
Scotland has different priorities and forgoes other spending such as on roads. It also caps the number of Scottish students who can go to a Scottish Uni even if they have all the requisite qualifications and takes in more RUK and overseas students who pay full whack.
And i disagree that scotland should be allowed it for free,whilst Others cannot.We are supposed to be uk countries, not each having their own coffers to do with as they wish.Even irish system is part free/students lower contribution
Nannan2
And i disagree that scotland should be allowed it for free,whilst Others cannot.We are supposed to be uk countries, not each having their own coffers to do with as they wish.Even irish system is part free/students lower contribution
That’s the point of devolved Goverment ….
I’m very glad that BBC Scotland places such importance on education.
It’s what the Scots people voted for, Nannan2. Devolved government so decisions could be made in Scotland.
Scotland has different priorities and forgoes other spending such as on roads
Looking at the roads near us, the government is forgoing spending on roads as well, but still charging uni fees.
Reeves is a good example of someone who's been promoted way beyond her level of competence. Her Budget fiasco(s) should be evidence enough, but I can think of another simple example.
She was on the News last year, a speech about 'regeneration', and mentioned a proposed new reservoir, a massive thing SW of Oxford - if built - I think she was somewhere in that area and promoting the supposed high-tech development 'corridor' between Oxford & Cambridge?
In recommending the reservoir, she said "we haven't had a new one for ages" (an utter lie, several have been completed or soon will be!) and "a new reservoir will help prevent all the sewage pollution" (famously in rivers and streams in many locations, due to ungoverned and poorly managed water companies!).
The woman is so dim/uninformed she should be disqualified from ANY office, let alone Chancellor -- a new reservoir will NOT prevent sewage pollution, unless new pipelines are built from all the sewage facilites round S & SE England to send the brown stuff into what would be the most expensive and gigantic cess-pit ever built?!
Nannan2
And i disagree that scotland should be allowed it for free,whilst Others cannot.We are supposed to be uk countries, not each having their own coffers to do with as they wish.Even irish system is part free/students lower contribution
Education has always been different in the 4 countries. We don't all have the same school leaving age!!
AGAA4 Totally agree, she is just a bad ambassador for politics and what they SHOULD mean for our country. They think they are above scrutiny and privilege 😡🥲🤬
This scandal was discussed in QT last night, Emma Reynolds MP, Labour Environment Secretary, on the Panel avoided answering FB's query as to whether Reeve's change to the terms of repayment was a breach of contract. In legal terms it may not be but in moral terms it certainly is. Disgraceful.
It does seem wrong that something like a loan can have the T&Cs changed as it goes along. When people commit to a financial transaction they should know exactly what is expected by way of payments - usually the only exception is a mortgage on a variable rate. It's hard lines for those who take out loans when rates are high and then drop, but the basis of most loans is that the rates are fixed at the start, with a firm end date. I don't think it's fair that student loans are not the same. I also think that (as was suggested on QT last night) they should be interest free, or at most set at the rate of inflation.
I don't think it's fair that student loans are not the same.
Agreed.
Isn't the interest rate on student loans variable, though, like mortgages unless it's a fixed rate mortgage?
The problem is that every so often the rules re repayment change.
Sorry, Doodledog, you did say that!
Mind is elsewhere this morning.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »