The headline is a decisive win for abolition, but the age breakdown scrambles the usual script of students versus taxpayers. The 16-24s voted almost as one for scrapping fees, unsurprisingly, but it was the 65-plus cohort that backed them nearly as emphatically — a generation that mostly never paid fees itself lining up with those about to. It was the 25-44s, squarely in repayment years and presumably still watching the debt tick over on their payslips, who were the most torn, splitting close to evenly on whether the system that shaped their finances should be dismantled.
That fracture speaks to something beyond simple self-interest: the argument here was less "who benefits" than what kind of state should pay for higher education, echoing Scotland's post-2008 experiment and the mis-selling row over retrospectively rewritten repayment terms that has eroded trust in the current settlement. Women in the chamber were notably more convinced than men that fees should go, suggesting the case landed harder among those more sceptical of the debt burden's fairness than of its price tag alone.
The floor's most respected Yes case was less a blanket abolition pitch than a rationing one: fund degrees but "reduc[e] the number of degree students to just the brightest," shifting others into "vocational polytechnics and colleges." The leading No voice agreed fees are a problem but wanted reform, not repeal — "more scholarships for poor kids doing employable subjects" and fixing "the jobs pipeline" so graduates have somewhere to go. Even the two top arguments, on opposite sides of the ledger, converged on the same diagnosis: it is the pipeline from study to work, not just the invoice, that needs fixing.
What the chamber delivered was less a verdict on free tuition as principle than a vote of no confidence in the system as currently priced.
9 Opinions
The fees leave poorer young people with debt that increases wildly and is a tax on earnings for decades. It encourages the idea of higher education as a product and that kids are paying for grades. The costs make people focus on 'employable'' degrees and we loose our arts and humanities scholars. More apprenticeships, bursaries for nurses and invest in our young people for the future, not just the rich kids
The University funding model needs to be changed. There should be an element of student (parent) contribution to ensure that a degree is worth the time and effort. Any changes to post-18 education funding need to have tough conversations about the benefit of many degree courses. Much of this funding should be diverted to apprenticeships / technical training.
No they shouldn't. I see no reason why I should pay out of my taxes for a professionals education, when they then repay me by charging extortionate fees for their services in the private sector. But if for example a nurse, doctor, teacher, solicitor etc works in the public sector. The public sector should pay the student loan for as long as they are serving the public free of charge
Only if c rap subjects are banned,
No, but there should be more scholarships for poor kids doing employable subjects and lower fees for those doing subjects necessary to the economy. And the jobs pipeline needs fixed so these grads have somewhere to work.
If we truly want high skilled workers in our workforce in things such as construction and engineering, or science, education etc why load these people with hundreds of thousands of debt that accrues interest from day one. Fix the rental market, fix the cost of living and students I think you’ll find would have to borrow less to survive. If you wish to a “fun degree” then I do personally feel you need to pay for that education. So drama for example.
The most effective investment a country can make is the education of its young people. It increases skills and capabilities. Not everyone needs a degree - especially not a Mickey Mouse subject. Funding degrees, and reducing the number of universities in favour of vocational polytechnics and colleges, are necessary changes, along with reducing the number of degree students to just the brightest and best.
We need to return to only 5% should attend Universities. Money is better invested in trade schools, apprenticeships and people starting work younger. Most people should leave school at 16 and get a job.
You don't need to go to uni to get a good job, from experience. Plus, you just end up a Communist. Pay for it or don't go, I don't need my taxes paying for liberal arts and lesbian dance theory degrees.