Lib Dem Voice has polled our members-only forum to discover what Lib Dem members think of various political issues, the Coalition, and the performance of key party figures. Over 660 party members have responded, and we’re publishing the full results over the next few days.
It’s almost three months since Lib Dem Voice last asked party members what they thought about tuition fees. So we asked three questions to gauge members’ views now the dust has settled … a little.
Part I: Demonstrations against the fee rises
Part II: 51% to 49% backing for Coalition’s policy on tuition fees …
Part III: Overwhleming majority still back party policy of scrapping tuition fees
LDV asked: The party’s Federal Policy Committee has confirmed that – irrespective of the Coalition’s stance – “the Liberal Democrat party policy remains to phase out tuition fees”. Do you support the inclusion of this commitment in the party’s next election manifesto?
- 71% – Support
- 29% – Oppose
(Excluding Other, Don’t know / No opinion 14%)
Though it might seem contradictory for more than half Lib Dem members to back the Coalition’s policy to increase fees at the same time as over 70% back the party’s long-standing policy to scrap fees the logic is clear enough: many felt that the proposals put forward by Nick Clegg and Vince Cable were the best available deal given the current Parliamentary arithmetic, with the Tories and Labour both pro-fees, but would want to scrap fees in the event of the Lib Dems winning a majority.
However, it’s clear from the comments — and, yes, I waded through the hundreds submitted — that very few members think the party can credibly repeat its existing manifesto commitment again in 2015. A high number of commenters, including many who back scrapping fees, argued the party risked turning itself into a laughing stock if it committed to reversing a policy it had helped enact. Many said the manifesto should commit the party to a reduction in fees rather than their complete abolition (other than as a long-term aim).
Here’s a sample of party members’ comments:
Within the constraints of Government, we’ve had to find an acceptable alternative. However, as a party, we should all be committed to providing free education.
Support, but please make it clear that we can only do what is within our power to do this, and that whilst an important issue, we’re far from a single issue party on this.
Bringing fees down should be a sign of a progressive society.
The next manifesto should be more clear about this being a long-term goal. The specific objective for the next parliament should be to reduce fees.
… if it’s in our manifesto and we again end up in a coalition as a minority partner we would not be able to implement it -let’s not get hoist with our own petard again!
If there is one way to make ourselves a bigger laughing stock on this issue than we already are, this has to be it. The party needs to grow up and face reality.
How can Lib Dem MP’s who voted in favour of a fee rise then campaign to abolish in 2015? Nick will look ridiculous in future leaders debate arguing to scrap tuition fees. I oppose fees but our policy at the next election must be to maintain but no further rise.
It makes us look faintly ridiculous given our action in government, but it is, and should remain, our policy. That’s not to say anyone will believe us…
We should support this aim but we will be laughed at and pilloried if we put it in a manifesto again.
The next Manifesto needs to be a clear statement of OUR principles and priorities, but with a clear caveat that parts of the Manifesto would be negotiable in any post-election Coalition.
I think we should wait and see how this market-led led system works in practice before deciding any policy on higher education funding. I do not think the public would believe us if we pledged to abolish tuition fees at the next general election in any case.
If universities are fully funded by the state then academics risk becoming responsible to governmental policies rather than to the needs of their students.
I think it looks ridiculous to have a coalition Lib Dem policy and a Federal Policy at odds with each other. The electorate will not be impressed.
If we have a costed plan to get rid of tuition fees in the future, then by all means we should include it in the manifesto. But we’re going to need to have a good argument as to why people should believe us that we would (I have no problems understanding the difference between coalition action and Lib Dem policy, but sections of the electorate won’t be so unforgiving).
Nobody believes us on this issue – this should have been a red line issue in the coalition negotiations, given that we pledged to abolish tuition fees – agreeing abstention was a cop-out and we have paid and will pay dearly for this. Possibly the worst decision ever.
We need the fee arrangemnet to keep the Universities going. Lib Dems should concentrate on improving the maintenance (living) grant for children from less wealthy families.
I feel that students should contribute to their university education, as the numbers of people currently wishing to attend university cannot be sustainably funded through general taxation in my opinion.
I think, in light of the changes to a more progressive system, and the additional costs that would now be associated with the elimination of tuition fees, it is necessary that this policy is fully costed, debated and reviewed – not simply carried forwards.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
20C night
Sammy Going South and the morality of employing child actors
Lessons from 1936 and 2026 for the Liberal Democrats (LDN#211)
Recipe for a real change of direction
Day 9304: So Farewell Then, Kier Starmer
Chloe
GWYN WILLIAMS
Jana
Pawel Urbanski
Iain Donaldson
20 Comments
I have been giving some thought to our next manifesto.
My first thought was a balnk sheet of paper.
My second was a single sheet bearing nothing but a large question mark.
My third, and current, thought is that we should not bother to produce a manifesto at all. That is the greenest option since it avoids wasting paper on a document which few will read and none will believe.
Thank you for printing those comments. They really are priceless. Laughter is the best medicine.
What is Elwyn Watkins campaigning for in Oldham on tuition fees policy ?
I would be delighted to see Lib Dems continuing to press for no tuition fees – with the obvious corollary that the numbers of students must be cut to make investment in a degree something that offers a positive return for taxpayers and student alike. Meantime, the varying regimes over recent years will make life toughest for those on the new regime, who will be paying longest and most if they are successful: of course, that assumes they’ll stick around to pay rather than emigrating. Long run, Willetts’ policy is unsustainable. The only issue is how long we have to wait before it is abandoned.
Reducing fees and leaving the tax system unchanged is to offer a subsidy from the taxpayer to the highest paid graduates by reducing the maximum amount that those who pay off their loans will pay, eliminating fees being the most extreme example. I support the principle of zero fees and free higher education, but on the basis that a degree is rationally no different from any other form of training or career route that leads to a high salary; and only then if the additional tax burden is levied on those who can afford to pay, not the basic rate tax payer on a low salary.
Poppie’s mum
“What is Elwyn Watkins campaigning for in Oldham on tuition fees policy ?”
Much more to the point, does anyone know what Labour’s policy in Oldham is on tuition fees?
After all, it was Labour who commissioned Lord Browne to produce his Report.
Simon Shaw – The Browne Review was, as I understand it, a part of the agreement around fees when they went to £3k. While it was true that Labour was in government when it was commissioned, it would have come up whatever – or at least that is my understanding.
Of course no government was any obligation to implement Browne’s findings. And quite bluntly given Vince Cable signed a pledge on HE fees voters could have a reasonable ecpectation that he would do just that.
There are good arguments to be made about Labour’s stance, yours are not amongst them.
Commenting reminder: Please remember to respect our moderation policy when commenting, including in particular the references to off-topic comments and to personal insults. We have this policy so that people can choose to take part in the discussions which interest them, rather than finding the same discussions shoe-horned into threads on posts on a wide range of other topics. More details are at https://www.libdemvoice.org/comment-policy Thanks.
“I think it looks ridiculous to have a coalition Lib Dem policy and a Federal Policy at odds with each other. The electorate will not be impressed.”
This is an odd comment.
We will be fighting the next election as an independent political party, as will the Conservatives. Both parties will have policies that are at odds with coalition government policy, because the coalition is a compromise between the two parties.
not too sure the conservatives will have too much trouble campaigning on what they have acheived in government tbh
Richard Heathcote
ISTR the Tories were going to scrap inheritance tax. I wonder what happened to that?
Tabman,
Good point. They gave up another flagship policy as well – no cuts to
middle classuniversal benefits. Of course, ‘right wing party forced to face reality and breaking promises as a result’ isn’t as enticing to the media as ‘left wing party forced to face reality and breaking promises as a result’.Dara
“Of course no government was any obligation to implement Browne’s findings.”
Still not clear what Labour’s policy is on tuition fees. Are you saying they are proposing something else? If so, please do tell us.
Dara
“There are good arguments to be made about Labour’s stance, yours are not amongst them.”
Rather strange comment, as the only “argument” I advanced was that Labour had commissioned the Browne Report. Are you saying they didn’t?
The real problem is that not enough people voted Liberal Democrat at the General Election last May.
More votes for Liberal Democrats would have given more Liberal Democrat MP’s from the “Social” wing of the party which would have lead to a much more concerted fight not to compromise on the issue of Tuition Fees.
A great deal of damage has been done to our standing as a party by this one particular issue which has detracted from all the good things that we have done in a very short space of time.
We should be proud of the fact that we have managed within a coalition to bring forward in excess of 60% of our manifesto and we should be shouting from the roof tops that to achieve more requires more votes for Liberal Democrats not less!!
@Simon Shaw
Just curious, your MP, voted again the rise in tuition fee’s. do you not support his decision on that?
sorry typo
above should have said
Just curious, your MP, voted against the rise in tuition fee’s. do you not share and support his decision on that?
Most commentators have missed the point. It isn’t about our Manifesto committment, Manifesto committments can be and often are undeliverable. It is about our MPs personally signed pledge. Our MPs represent and demonstrate what our party is about. In this case those who supported the proposals dishonoured me and my fellow activists. Clegg seems to deliberately misunderstand this. If this example of dishonourable behaviour is acceptable in the ‘National Interest’ what will be the next justification?
The problem is, the nature of the coalition agreement, meant that the Liberal Democrats can’t have a ‘red line’ issue. Tutition Fees should have been one of them – if for nothing else, than to avoid the ridiculous situation that they now find themselves in.
Ditto, banking bonuses:
http://etonmess.blogspot.com/2011/01/bankin-bonuses-is-this-line-in-sand-for.html
” high number of commenters, including many who back scrapping fees, argued the party risked turning itself into a laughing stock if it committed to reversing a policy it had helped enact.”
Which tends to beg the question why did your MP’s fail to abstain, let alone vote against the proposal? Are you now saying that the party should backtrack on a policy supported by 71% of members on the basis that it is Tory policy?
In my view a mistake was made by those individual MPs that though not in Government didn’t honour the personal pledge taken before elections.
Not enough consideration was given to the fact that from the electorate point of view we elect a Parliament, not a Government, coalition politics may arguably be better than single party politics but Parliamentary debate may be even better.
If those that pledged to oppose fees would have done so a lot less damage would have been done and a healthy debate would have been had.
And if the Government would have had to rely on Labour votes to pass a bill then so be it, arguably we would have ended up with a better bill.