Blame the bankers, not those who are victims of recession

REGARDING the letter (Yorkshire Post, April 30) by Geoff Sweeting, berating teachers for their anger at proposed cuts to their pensions and working conditions, I will say this: Mr Sweeting, your anger is directed at the wrong people.

The UK is, as you say, “having to borrow billions”, but the fault for that lies with the financial industry. The vast public debt, the people who have lost their businesses, jobs and homes is completely caused by the bankers, nobody else.

Teachers, and other public sector workers, are, like those in private industry, victims of this, not the perpetrators.

That the public debt has to be dealt with there is no doubt, and millions who did nothing to cause the problem will, and for many, are, having to make sacrifices. But you’d think that those who caused the debt and subsequent recession would be required to make sacrifices to, and if they have any conscience, be happy to do so.

Not just those who brought about the bankruptcy of four banks, but as the entire banking industry is now maintained by taxpayers’ money being used to guarantee the toxic debts of the industry.

So, if you want to vent your understandable anger, I suggest you write to the Prime Minister and ask why those who wrecked our countries finances are not being required to assist in putting the matter right.

To be critical of victims of the recession, teachers or others, who try and fight back is, in effect, saying, it’s all right for rich bankers to rob us all. It’s our duty to just fight over who gets what of the scraps they throw us.

From: Chloe Shi Chien Berry, First year PR student, Leeds Metropolitan University.

I REMEMBER the day that 323 MPs voted in favour of the £9,000 tuition fees that future students would have to pay to get into university. I was in horror.

Although the higher fees are not applicable to me, I fear for the future of those who would otherwise apply if not for this drastic increase in money.

The Government estimated that the majority of universities would increase fees to the £6,000 threshold. Subsequently this estimation turned out to be completely off. They predicted, the future of education costs without investigating the true cost to a university to maintain a student per year before coming up with a threshold.

Lifting the tuition fee cap is just like privatising the universities and the Government is no longer subsidising each student that universities are taking in.

What does the Government expect for giving the universities the option to charge anything they like from £6,000 to £9,000 with no Government funding? Even if the universities want to charge the maximum of £9,000, all they have to do is to prove they provide support to poorer students.

What do they mean by poorer students? How about those poor students or “all right” students? There are no poor students. As a student myself, none of my classmates or people that I can see or know are struggling to indulge in their university student lifestyle.

I’m sure some of them are from lower-income families but going to university is a whole different story from low household income. Back to my point, they should change the wording of “poorer students” to “sceptical students” or “students unwilling to get into humongous debt for trying to increase their quality of life by obtaining a degree”.

It is true, a degree is just a piece of paper that cannot guarantee a job, and perhaps it is time for us to look at the quality of the graduates and the teaching quality in higher education.

From: Tom Howley, Marston Way, Wetherby.

THOUSANDS of youngsters are swotting for A-level examinations with a view to a university education. These will be the unlucky vanguard which will face 30 years of debt after receiving their degrees.

They are doubly unlucky for not being born and living in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland where they would be more generously treated. Scotland, for example, does not impose fees on its students, neither will the country call upon European Union students to pay for an education in the Highlands. Germans, French undergraduates will be treated the same as the Scots.

However, should English students have the temerity to be enrolled in Edinburgh, Glasgow or other institutes of learning north of the border, they will pay up to £9,000 a year.

The Welsh Assembly has not increased fees and will continue to offer a university education to its own and EU students for £3,290 a year. The less privileged future English academics will once again have to find up to £9,000. Northern Ireland follows suit with fees of £3,000 a year for all but their English students.

Last month we witnessed demonstrations against the unfairness of a Government policy which offers its youth a near-lifetime of penury. Protesters chanted, marched and pleaded for fair play, to no avail.

Perhaps worried pupils, parents and voters should make a more personal objection and call for public constituency meetings and demand that their local MP is present to explain how a situation has arisen which penalises English citizens and allows Scots, Welsh and Irish a better educational deal, which they in turn offer to Europeans.

At the same time, the MP could also tell us why the sick Scots “enjoy” free medical prescriptions, while the English are asked to cough up £7.40 an item.