Grants abolished for students from poor families.

I admit I am not a fan of the Conservative party. I have never voted for them and cannot imagine a situation where I would vote for them but that does not mean I disagree with every single policy they have come up with. I even have friends that vote Tory.
Having said that I do not agree with abolishing maintenance grants for students from poorer backgrounds.
As usual the changes are far from ideal due to the lack of lateral thought, democracy, transparency and importantly input from all stakeholders in creating these decisions.
Th Tory handling of university and student finance which includes their time in power with the treacherous Liberal Democrats is ill thought out with negative long-term consequences.
I do not have a problem with students being charged fees of £4k a year as it reminds them not to squander an education that costs the taxpayer money and the final debt is not particularly large.
Fees of £9000 a year plus no maintenance grant for those from poorer backgrounds is I feel putting too much financial burden on those particulars students.
Students from poorer backgrounds do not have the financial safety nets or handouts offered to students from stable and richer backgrounds and will end up with bigger overall debts than those from richer families which can not be considered fair.
Coming out of university with £40-£50,000 worth of debt is too much and will deter students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
As universities are having their student quotas lifted more students will apply to go to university and the maintenance grant bill will rise from £1.57 billion a year to £3 billion in the next decade.
Osborne states there was a "basic unfairness in asking taxpayers to fund grants for people who are likely to earn a lot more than them".
This is just another one-dimensional divide and conquer line of drivel.
Did none of his Tory friends point out that the taxpayers he talks about, are the parents of the students having their grants removed. It is obviously a net financial loss for these taxpaying families.
Taxpayers on low incomes that do not have children or do not have children that will be attending university still have an interest in creating as many top quality graduates as possible. The taxpayers of today become the pensioners of tomorrow so it is in the interests of all taxpayers to make the next generation as financially sound as possible otherwise tomorrow's tax receipts will not pay for tomorrow's pensions.
If the UK economy is to balance its books it may not be able to pay pensions so the UK will only be able do this via excelling in high-technology companies. The only way this will be achieved is by creating as many top quality graduates as is possible. If the UK becomes a country that owns the next generation of Apple, Google and Amazon and those companies are made to pay their fair share of tax then those tax receipts can go a long way to enriching the lives of those on low incomes.
Osborne states "If we don't tackle this problem, then universities will become under-funded and our students won't get places, and I'm not prepared to let that happen,".
I do not understand the relevance of this statement but regardless the gist of this statement is nonsense as it conveniently forgets that each student brings in £9000 per year to each University so the reality is as the student numbers are going to increase universities are going to become richer than they have ever been.
One of the big problems of student financing is a lot of students after graduating never pay back the loans because they never get a good job. The obvious solution here is to limit the number of university places for courses that rarely lead to jobs and increase the number of university places for skills that are required.
I do wonder if we are focusing too much on the creation of a large number of graduates. It should not just be about churning out a large number of graduates it should be about churning out a large number of skilled employees and I am sure that for many people and industries this would be better served by acquiring skills and experience while working full-time. In these cases if higher-level academic skills are additionally required there should be more flexibility in providing top quality degrees in a modular format to to enable part-time study.
I guess we will wait and see if the increased price of a degree reduces the number of applications from students from poorer backgrounds.