Over at The Guardian’s Comment is Free website, Lib Dem MP for Birmingham Yardley John Hemming has penned a robust defence of the Coalition’s plans for higher education funding in England, taking as his starting point the IFS’s findings that more than half of students will pay 9% of income over £21,000 a year for 30 years: “In other words this new system is a graduate tax in all but name.” Here’s an excerpt:
It is, however, not an open-ended graduate tax as it has a cap. The cap works in such a way that graduates with higher earnings get to a point at which they have paid more than the original cost of their education. That additional amount goes up with the scale of a graduate’s earnings and when they’ve reached that point they stop paying the graduate tax.
To me, that seems – given that we have a coalition government – a reasonable way of fulfilling both the Liberal Democrat policy of scrapping tuition fees as well as the NUS pledge in which we stated we would campaign for “a fairer system”. This is that fairer system. People have got to get away from looking at this issue as student debt. It is not a debt, in most ways. The bailiffs won’t come round if you don’t pay the full amount because you have a low income. In fact, if you do not earn more than the threshold you pay nothing at all. In essence, what we have is a future tax liability.
So to that extent the adage “if it quacks, it’s a duck” seem appropriate. If the payments are like a tax system, in which you pay a percentage of income, then it is a future tax liability.
You can read John’s article in full here.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Find Halloween and seasonal gifts in my Etsy shop today.
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Sue Gray: Beware of beat-sweeteners and source-greasers
Is Kemi Badenoch still in the lead? - The Week in Polls
Belljar
England urged to bring in minimum unit price on alcohol as deaths rise 10% a year
David Warren
David Allen
Steve Trevethan
John Waller
Vince Thompson
14 Comments
John finished his article with the line ..
“That is why I believe we have not only delivered on our pledge of a fairer system, but also delivered substantially on scrapping student tuition fees”
It’s bad enough seeing people in our party trying to justify something that’s unjustifiable, the breaking of a written pledge signed that we campaigned on , to try and claim that the pledge has actually been fulfilled is Sophistry of the highest order. I respect those more who are claiming circumstances have changed more than I respect this and I don’t respect them at all.
Labour and the Tories have always been full of lying self serving career politicians, prostituting the truth for the possibility of a minor roll in a government department, I had a (self deluding) belief that ours would somehow be better.
While I understand the need to put a party spin on things, those spinning should remember the the Hubert.H.Humprey quote “Propaganda, to be effective, must be believed. To be believed, it must be credible. To be credible, it must be true”. Publishing this in a national newspaper is ju8st insulting peoples intelligence and I thought we where better than that.
@Amy Mcleod Utterly agree with your points. And just take a look at the comments on the linked article, whoever advises this man needs a new job.
New Politics, New Spin….
Even Alistair Campbell wouldn’t have tried that frankly ridiculous pile of rubbish. He pledged to vote againt a rise in fees, simple.
By the way I believe Hemming is planning another article claiming that Blair did not invade Iraq and Thatcher actually gave milk to children and has a yearly christmas party for retired miners….
On a serious note he seems to make it a good thing about the new policy that over 30 years some will pay less. I remember my first mortgage and feeling that a 25 year debt was a massive responsibility. My saving grace was that I would have a house at the end of it. Some of the students this affects will be paying 30% tax for years just to have a relatively low income (think teachers, social workers etc). It’s a betrayal and to try to dress it up as Mr Hemming has is disgraceful.
“That is why I believe we have not only delivered on our pledge of a fairer system, but also delivered substantially on scrapping student tuition fees”
Rubbish
“So to that extent the adage “if it quacks, it’s a duck” seem appropriate.”
I’m afraid that Mr Hemming is a doubleplusgood duckspeaker.
“That is why I believe we have not only delivered on our pledge of a fairer system, but also delivered substantially on scrapping student tuition fees”
I believe the first post on ‘comment is free’ just about sums up my feelings about this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/07/scrap-tuition-fees-we-have
Can you comment to this?
Seems I can so don’t understand the comments on the Martin Shapland thread
“Seems I can so don’t understand the comments on the Martin Shapland thread”
Comments were initially disabled. Now they’re enabled.
The new system may well be fairer than the existing one, and I’m sure it is fairer than the Conservatives would have introduced on their own. Also, don’t forget that Labour broke their pledge when they promised no top-up fees then introduced them.
But that is irrelevant when it comes to how our MPs should vote. Being no worse than Labour is not what the Lib Dems are about. Our MPs made personal pledges to vote against any increase in fees, and they must keep to those pledges. If they vote for the increase, the damage to our Party and to politics in general will be long and terrible.
This is now a matter of honour and credibility, not of economics and finely balanced policy.
As an illustration of just how duplicitous Mr Hemming is being, it’s worth remembering what the Lib Dems actually said about this during the election campaign. This is Clegg, just a week before polling day:
“”Labour and the Conservatives have been trying to keep tuition fees out of this election campaign.
“It’s because they don’t want to come clean with you about what they’re planning.
“Despite the huge financial strain fees already place on Britain’s young people, it is clear both Labour and the Conservatives want to lift the cap on fees.
“If fees rise to £7,000 a year, as many rumours suggest they would, within five years some students will be leaving university up to £44,000 in debt.
“That would be a disaster. If we have learnt one thing from the economic crisis, it is that you can’t build a future on debt.
“The Liberal Democrats are different. Not only will we oppose any raising of the cap, we will scrap tuition fees for good, including for part-time students.
“We can’t do it overnight, but we can start straight away with students in their first year – that way means anyone at university this autumn will have their debt cut by at least £3,000.
“Students can make the difference in countless seats in this election.
“Use your vote to block those unfair tuition fees and get them scrapped once and for all.””
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7641956/Lib-Dems-target-student-vote-with-tuition-fees-warning.html
“If the payments are like a tax system, in which you pay a percentage of income, then it is a future tax liability.”
Has anyone told him that’s how student fees work at the moment?
John Hemming is quite right in saying that for half of students, this is more of a graduate tax. But that, for various reasons, was never our policy. And I might remind him of the first half of his pledge, which stated that he wouldn’t vote to raise the cap. Whichever way you twist it, the proposals raise the cap.
“And I might remind him of the first half of his pledge, which stated that he wouldn’t vote to raise the cap. Whichever way you twist it, the proposals raise the cap.”
Of course. And it’s not only a question of raising the cap – graduates collectively will be paying much more towards the cost of the universities, and the government much less. In those circumstances it’s ridiculous to pretend that fees are not being raised. As for pretending they’re being abolished altogether, obviously no one’s going to be fooled by that for a moment.
However Vince Cable argues it, he and Nick Clegg have given in to power over principle. The positiion on tuition fees was central to the apprach to the electorate.
The Lib-Dems may in government (sort of), but they no longer exist in any meaningful and recognisable way as political party. There is simply no point in my supporting this party anymore. To spend money on supporting the Lib Dems at the next election will be money wasted…please give it to charity instead.
Have the comments on this thread really been turned off?. If so it is a mistake to say the least
It remains a fact that Vince Cable has tweaked the recommendations of the Browne report so, as far as it goes, the IFS comment is true; that effectively the proposals such as they are, appear to be are a graduate tax in all but name but that is less than the whole story and it certainly does not make it right.
The Browne report turns higher education into a market, pure and simple. This is the real issue and really should be focus of the debate. In my view it is simply the wrong path for higher education in the UK and will, in short order, undermine our whole higher education system.
Lib Dem party policy still remains, quite rightly the abolition of tuition fees and a pledge is a pledge. Lib Dem M.P’s should vote against the issue when it is eventually brought before the HOC. Don’t think they should be worried about the the coalition agreements patronising permission to abstain on the issue. After all, the sanctity of the Coalition agreement has already been breached (to name but one issue) with Lansley’s Health White Paper. Which is simply a blueprint for totally privatising the health service. A policy not in either of the party’s manifesto’s, let alone the coalition agreement.
Dave Eastham