The first link highlights the abolition of the maintenance grant as detrimental to poorer students (obviously, as they rely on this for accommodation & living costs whereas the richer student can rely on their parents). There is no correlation between the existence of the maintenance grant and the abolition of tuition fees - this is conflation of the issue. Having a maintenance grant is a positive. No tuition fees are a positive. Labour are committing to abolishing tuition fees and restoring the maintenance grant.
Have you even read the second piece? As it does nothing to argue the case that poorer students do not benefit from free tuition.
It states that highest earners in the future will benefit most from no tuition fees as they will no longer have to pay interest on a maintenance/tuition fee loan which is only repaid in full by higher earners. Upon entry into university there is nothing stopping poorer individuals from accessing higher paying professions. The issue is propelling these individuals into a position whereby it is financially viable for them to enter university.
The study also directly states repeatedly, although I'll quote it directly here:
'these reforms would dramatically reduce the level of debt students hold upon graduation'. A good thing?
The third piece explicitly states 'there are signs that the number of state school pupils going to university has dropped since fees rose to £9,000' yet then fluffs on about pumping funding into providing primary age children with nutritional advice & preschool teaching. Completing avoiding the headline topic, which is tuition fees.
Early education likely does require additional resource. Poorer students do require maintenance grants. Students should not be saddled with ridiculous levels of debt. Labour are planning to invest in all 3.
How did you derive from any of these pieces that it is more beneficial, than detrimental, for poorer students to be saddled with £50,000 of debt than not?
It's hard to tell if you're cherry picking and acting in bad faith, or have just done it by accidental bias and don't realise that you're omitting key pieces of information that dilute your argument significantly.
The first link highlights the abolition of the maintenance grant as detrimental to poorer students
No, it highlights that both that and the cutting of fees are detrimental. Here's what it says:
"The research by Lucy Hunter Blackburn, a former civil servant with the Scottish government, estimates that free university tuition and the cuts in grants to lower-earning students means middle-class families and students will be £20m a year better."
You've cut that out to look at only one thing (cutting grants) because cutting fees logically feels as if it's helping, when it's not. The researcher addresses that perspective directly:
"Free tuition in Scotland is the perfect middle-class, feel-good policy," Hunter Blackburn said. "It's superficially universal, but in fact it benefits the better-off most, and is funded by pushing the poorest students further and further into debt."
I assume you agree with me that (given resources are finite) the state having more in the coffers to fund public services and, for example, provide grants would benefit poorer students? That's part of why receiving less money from richer students' families is also a burden on poorer families, rather than solely being a benefit for the rich.
Have you even read the second piece? As it does nothing to argue the case that poorer students do not benefit from free tuition.
I'll repeat your question back about reading the second study. Did you miss this finding?:
"The repayments from the highest-earning graduates (those earning more than around £100,000 a year on average, over their lifetime) would fall by 67% from £93,000 to £30,000, while the lowest-earning would benefit very little."
Again - as we're both aiming to improve things for poorer students - I'm sure we'd agree that it would be better for them if the state received the average £63,000 per graduate on over a 100k salary right?
And funding the return of fees to the £9k fees students in England alone would cost the government £30billion - is that better for poorer families than better funding local public health?
Report also hypothesises that the increasing numbers of students, without a cap on student numbers, could lead to university resources being more stretched and therefore less budget-per-student - that would be another negative for poorer students, who are already unequally more burdened than their richer counterparts.
The third piece explicitly states 'there are signs that the number of state school pupils going to university has dropped since fees rose to £9,000' yet then fluffs on about pumping funding into providing primary age children with nutritional advice & preschool teaching. Completing avoiding the headline topic, which is tuition fees.
I only gave that link for context to the two pieces of research, aware it's a comment piece (albeit linking to interesting evidence).
I don't really see how you can argue they are not linked - if the government chooses to spend £30billion on returning money to graduates, including the riches among them, then logically that is £30 billion pounds from the budget that can't be spent on programmes that narrow inequality as opposed to widen it. The early years focus is a great suggestion, because as we know from the evidence if you intervene in inequality at an earlier age you tend to have a greater and more lasting effect. Instead of subsidising all graduates, and not just those from poorer families, I'd prioritise speding my resources following the public health evidence base and try to ensure that first and foremost there are fewer poorer families and secondly that the effects of being born into a poorer family are better offset by a well resourced welfare state
It's something that could even have cross party support. Even the more callous among us tend to be swayed if not from a human argument than by the evidenced economic argument that there's a better return on investment in investment in early years programmes. And better results lead to a healthier and more productive workforce, and stronger economy.
Poll