If BWLP really does have a stake/interest in the fortunes of the Labour Party, it’s just more evidence that the Labour movement doesn’t even grasp the essentials of rudimentary logic.

Put your criticism of Stephen Williams in your leaflets by all means, but please don’t try and pass it off as an actual argument.

you have found the flaw so you better keep him and let him continue to win votes for us

Does this mean that he told people what would gain votes and not the whole truth – poor communication is the new economical with the truth

That sounds a bit obsessive. Some would say bitter that Labour lost the seat and will not regain it. Shame.

Back on the substance of the issue, I would say that just because Stephen unfortunately did not faitfully reflect the party policy is not lying, but is the result of poor communication.

“Finally, we did NOT promise free tuition for ALL students at the last election”

funny his election address (and I quote exactly)

“The Lib Dems would axe all tuition fees by introducing a new 50% rate of tax on all incomes over £100,000″

Nowhere on the leaflet does it qualify this to say that all does not mean all. I am sorry to say that Stephen is now rewriting history to favour his current position. Some would say lying. Good job we kept all his leaflets.

Then I look at my brother who turns 30 this year and is still paying off his student debt, with two children to raise.

I believe that we have to make sure this policy works and free education is available for all who want it.

I believe that university education is both a short term local benefit (volunteering, economy, skills for cheap) and long term national benefit enough that it is ludicrous that students themselves should be paying for giving this nation and our towns the benefits they do. However along with Jo’s argument about the average earnings of a graduate being wrong, so too is the idea that every graduate will ultimately benefit the country to the tune of more than university costs.

However until you can apply a liberal stance (and I can’t see a way) of charging only the “failures” of the university system, and not the “successes” it only makes sense to me that it is fair that the education is fully funded by the state for ALL students, while the cost of living is continued as a *fair* loan (currently it is not) which is turned to a grant for those with the need for the benefit.

Saying that, such a view is my own…the NUS on the other hand passed policy a couple of years ago now that pretty much falls in line with what Stephen Williams is saying. Now while there is a bigger discussion over whether students are in touch with the NUS, the representative body of all students voted that it was time to focus the fight on better equality of access and on halting further rises to the tuition fees. Strategically I can see how this (Labour led) idea has good worth, and if Lib Dems followed it then they wouldn’t necessarily be doing anything wrong by what students are really fighting for right now.

The policy review I am leading is to get a policy that is relevant for the 2010 general election, not a rehash of what we have said at previous ones. In April 2010 graduates will start paying a 9% flat rate tax on their earnings which will recover maintenance loans and a contribution to tuition. There are now (in 2008) very few undergraduates (just 4th years in fact) still paying up front fees. By this time next year there will be none.

I am all in favour of simple to understand policy messages, but they must be rooted in the reality of contemporary circumstances, not those of 5 years previously.

Finally, we did NOT promise free tuition for ALL students at the last election. Our promise was limited (and costed as such) to the full time undergraduates who paid up front fees. The message was clearly relevant and popular with them but meant NOTHING to full time students from poorer backgrounds who were exempt from fees (about a quarter of the total), or to part time undergraduates (about a fifth) or to the many adult learners following a non degree route.

My objective is to get a policy in place that is socially just, matches real people’s needs and also keeps the Liberal Democrats as the party with the widest appeal to students and graduates.

But then what could you expect from a lying bunch of liars?

Must be my imagination then. I’m sure Labour brought in tuition fees in the 97-01 Parliament. In the 97 election Tony Blair said, “”Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education.”

Hmmm very interesting and measured:

Labour only brought in tuition fees after a general election when they said they would.
Electoral reform – brought in the new arrangements in Wales and Scotland

answer is you

You bunch of fucking cretins. Labour promised not to bring in tuition fees, then they did. Labour promised not to bring in top-up fees, then they did. Labour promised electoral reform. It never happened. Who exactly is the bunch of lying scumbags here, you or us?

(expecting this comment and the previous one to be deleted, so flame on, baby)

“Williams made his opposition to tuition fees a main plank of his election campaign in a seat with 20,000 university students. For the last year he has been writing plans for a u-turn. This blatant and cynical act shows that Williams is a hypocrite who is prepared to tell any lie and make any promise to win the student vote. It is unlikely that Williams would have won the seat from Labour’s Valerie Davey without this lie and he should do the honourable thing and stand down.” commented Smith.

In September this month Williams told the Times Higher Education Supplement that “the policy was unsustainable,” and that Nick Clegg, the leader of the party, had come to this conclusion after “long internal discussions”.

It has long been known that Mr Williams, MP for Bristol West and Lib Dem spokesperson for Higher Education has been planning to ditch the lib dems commitment on tuition fees and that the issue was not debated at the Lib Dem Party Conference in February because of fears it would cause a rebellion against the leadership.

Paul Smith added “This is the sort of behaviour which brings politics into disrepute and turns people off voting.”

Why indeed, especially as they will probably benefit economically from their smartness in any case?

The problem is we’ve got into a situation where 40-50% of the population are expected to spend 3 years in full-time higher education – and to end up heavily in debt as a result – regardless of whether or not they want to, and regardless of whether it’s of any practical benefit to them.

I don’t know what the answer to that one is. I wish I did.