By: Ethan Miller, Student Voices Writer
Debate began with Labour MP Gordon Marsden who spoke
passionately about how wrong it was that this legislation was not brought to
the floor of the House, and how the government have been using Statutory
Instruments to sneak through “profound and controversial additions to laws”.
After him spoke Joseph Johnson for the majority of debate, Minister of State
for Universities, who bragged the “world class higher education sector” and
focused on the need for sensible funding, the importance of social mobility,
and the economic benefit of higher educated students. This Tragedies first act
mainly focused on the issues with the use of instruments instead of the cuts,
with the opposition criticising sneak legislation and the government defending
their vague manifesto. In closing the debate, Shadow Business, Innovation and
Skills Minister Kevin Brennan, and Education Minister Nick Boles made the last
speeches. Primarily, the opposition focused on the dramatic consequences the
cuts would have all over Britain, discouraging poorer students from higher
education. Brennan brought up the fact given by the IFS saying that “The
poorest 40% of students going to university in England will now graduate with
debts of up to £53,000…rather than up to £40,500”, proving that abolishing
these grants will only increase student debt. In closing his statement, he said
that these cuts were “Mean in spirit, underhand in execution, and tragic in
consequences”. Finally stood Education Minister Nick Boles, who spoke out
against the opposition and students calling them “Doom-mongers” who were
bringing out only the bad part of the legislation, he insisted that the
governments intent in University reform is to follow in the footsteps of Tony
Blair, Gordon Brown, and the Coalition by putting emphasis on loans rather than
grants which will give greater economic benefit and prevent tax payers who
didn’t go to university paying for those who did. Student Loans are the
supposed replacement to the grants and will allow more students to access
higher education, the government's argument was focused on the elimination of
deficit and the cost effectiveness of this act, instead of the social impact. Great
controversy was caused when he called the National Union of Students, ‘shroud
wavers’ – a term meaning those who only focus on the negative effects of a
policy in order to influence public opinion, claiming that the opposition was
manipulating the general populous and pandering to the students, needless to
say he was asked to retract the term used.
Meet the Author:
Writer
Ethan Miller is 16 and is currently studying Politics, English Literature, and Music A levels at Liverpool College. He had lived in Norwich all his life before he moved to Liverpool in September, and is now settled in to life here in the north. Coming from Norwich South, he enjoys remaining in a Labour constituency and his politics follow very close to his party
How the government got away with scrapping maintenance grants
Reviewed by Admin
on
20:20
Rating:
No comments:
Share your views here! But read our Comment Policy first, found on the about page.