Rachel Reeves said *WHAT*!

It is a choice to become a university student.

I suppose it is but if every potential student chose not go up because of the crippling debts they will be left with, then we would soon be in trouble for want of qualified people to do the jobs we depend on.

It isn’t only doctors who go to university. Nurses, paramedics and the myriad of other professions that provide health care services; the pharmacists, the technicians operating the complex range of diagnostic tools and interpreting the data, blood scientists to name a few.

I can think of any number of professions that depends on the knowledge and skills acquired from tertiary level education.

To my knowledge, Reeves wasn’t commenting on the quality of tertiary education or whether some degrees are deemed more useful than others, a very subjective and dangerous path to go down imo.

What she was doing was that cheap, easy appeal to people who think their pockets are being picked to subsidise others while they, of course, are 100% self-funding. Show me a person who is.

The student 'loan' is not now like a normal loan where a person borrows money and then later pays it back with a reasonable amount of interest. The government are acting like loan sharks with student debt now. The interest, and other conditions with it, are unfair.

Shocked to see an interview on Newsnight couple of days ago. Newly qualified doctor, in training to become a paediatrician, had £45,000 of debt when he completed his basic training. He’s now repaid nearly £10,000 but because of changes to the scheme, he still “owes” around £70,000!
Appalling.

MaizieD, thanks: I did say I believed in free education first time round, but was pondering beyond her statement to a number of things - the quality of what many students are getting, and of course getting a job (and then beyond to what wasnt said, like the situation we find ourselves in where despite people not having to pay back until they earn enough do find it an unbearable burden to start young lives with and so on...and people who resent paying for others education (even tho its not quite that simple.....

- rather than outright condemnation of what she said I'd like it to be looked at in depth.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post, Wyllow.

I was puzzled as to what making a choice to go to university had to do with what Reeves said.

🙄

Yawn.

Wyllow3

Somewhat different.

A society with a caring welfare and health system will fund at least at a basic level those who are in need and have no choice but to rely on the state, including those of us who are older or disabled.

It is a choice to become a university student. Its all very complex, but not comparable in any way.

It’s not complex at all, I don’t know why you’re giving credence to Reeves’ nonsense about students.

"should we look at post 18 education more broadly".

MaizieD

I don't understand what you are saying, Wyllow.

Is it that you think free education should stop at age 18 and that university after that should be paid for, either directly or on tick?

So university education becomes more elite, only available to those who can afford to pay, or who are prepared to be paying a 'graduate tax' in the form of loan+ interest repayments for decades after obtaining their degree?

I've not said any of those things, stop putting words into my mouth.

I've said very little upthread, just ideally university education should be paid for but I questioned seriously whether we could just carry on as we are with the numbers going to uni, and also I questioned just how good the education some are getting is, and should be re look at post 18 education more broadly.

Those of us who are retired from work are being funded, at least in part, by those who are still working. I think some of them resent us for that. Remarks such as Reeves made will only increase that resentment.

Yes, that attitude is concerning.

Many many people resent ( often quite rightly) those who don't work, particularly if there are concerns around the legitimacy of that non working.
I can completely understand why those on minimum wage might feel some level of resentment towards my middle class children receiving a grant towards university education which will more than likely give them a non minimum wage career.

I don't understand what you are saying, Wyllow.

Is it that you think free education should stop at age 18 and that university after that should be paid for, either directly or on tick?

So university education becomes more elite, only available to those who can afford to pay, or who are prepared to be paying a 'graduate tax' in the form of loan+ interest repayments for decades after obtaining their degree?

Somewhat different.

A society with a caring welfare and health system will fund at least at a basic level those who are in need and have no choice but to rely on the state, including those of us who are older or disabled.

It is a choice to become a university student. Its all very complex, but not comparable in any way.

This thread carries some of the most sensible comments about Rachel Reeves that I’ve read for a long time.
Would she transfer that comment to say
“Unfair that those who don’t go to work should be funded by those who do?”

MaizieD 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.

Politics of envy. Divisive.

Students, and universities in general pay a lot into the economy. I outlined various ways they do that above,

You did indeed, Doodledog and it was very helpful. It's vital that people understand that what the government spends doesn't disappear into a black hole. It actually keeps the economy moving and even growing. Government spending is as much a 'public good' as are the things its spending provides.

Every penny paid in tax originated with the government when the government purchased the resources needed to provide our services and infrastructure. This is how money is created. Taxation just takes back the excess to control inflation caused by too much money in the economy.

Students, and universities in general pay a lot into the economy. I outlined various ways they do that above, but it also happens when buildings are erected/maintained, franchises sell food and drink on campus and employ staff, machines and other equipment (eg in labs) are bought, serviced and modified, and much more.

Cutting student numbers is very bad for local economies, and that feeds into the national economy, so we all benefit, even if we live miles from a university.

with parental income assessment for maintenance grants to help poorer individuals is what I will argue against. ^If somebody's parents are unwilling to financially support them in further education, are you quite happy for that individual to be denied their opportunity? Basic maintenance grants should be available to all.*
Agreed. It's either that or make contributions compulsory, and there would be numerous problems with that.

Also, one of the many problems with means-testing based on household income is that it is made up in different ways. Why should a family with two workers earning £20k each lose out, when a student from another with a single earner on £39k gets a grant because the other parent is unwilling to get a job? Maybe if a cut-off were set by dividing the income by the number of adults in the household it would be fairer. But then what about people who can't work for good reasons?

Obviously those figures are made up, but the point is that means-testing is such a blunt instrument.

^ but we have be aware that all tax payers, whether they have children at uni or not, whether they have been at uni or not, are funding the huge student loan debt,^

'Taxpayers are not funding the student loans.

If only this lie weren't superglued to people's belief of how the national economy works.

Every penny paid in tax originated with the government when the government purchased the resources needed to provide our services and infrastructure. This is how money is created. Taxation just takes back the excess to control inflation caused by too much money in the economy.

This is what makes Reeves' statement so utterly wrong. The government is 'bearing the cost'. No-one else is. She's just feeding envy and division; and worry about 'how can we afford it'.

Witzend

You could equally claim that people with no children should get a tax rebate because they’re not using state schools.

In which case parents paying school fees would probably claim the same.

Childless adults could also claim a rebate for not using maternity services, childhood vaccinations, etc.

Talk about a slippery slope. - that’s never going to happen.

That is exactly what I thought, Witzend.

You just cannot work a system like that. It's either a system of state provision of public 'good', or; pay for private provision. But if it's state provision individuals can't pick and choose which bit they'd like to contribute to...

And if it's private provision we retreat further into the Victorian era.

Above all, it was the sheer divisiveness of what she said that horrified me. I didn't quote the entire statement because, quite honestly, I didn't think the first bit was relevant.

My eldest grandaughter left university in 2024 and is now in permanent employment and repaying her loan. Granddaughter 2 is a second year medical student, acquiring debt for a total of five years. Housing is also very expensive in the city where she is studying.
My friends and neighbours in France are horrified by how much UK students have to pay for tuition and living costs. In France the state provides.
The students here do stay close to home though. Travelling across the country to study is very rare here.

You could equally claim that people with no children should get a tax rebate because they’re not using state schools.

In which case parents paying school fees would probably claim the same.

Childless adults could also claim a rebate for not using maternity services, childhood vaccinations, etc.

Talk about a slippery slope. - that’s never going to happen.

I do agree with public funding when appropriate, but we have be aware that all tax payers, whether they have children at uni or not, whether they have been at uni or not, are funding the huge student loan debt, and clearly we can't let it go up and up forever.
Should we be funding so many academically not other areas of skills, are people on half decent courses , with consistent tutors who aren't worried about constant zero hours or very short tern contracts, and so on.

I expect more statements now as a result of the answer to the interview statement RR made, as it is a big issue that wont go away thats just grown and grown into the massive somewhat out of control situation we have.