Ahead of Thursday’s vote on student fees, advice is coming in thick and fast.
Here’s what some senior Lib Dems have been writing publicly on the issue.
First, Chris Rennard, who concludes:
The crucial test for wavering Liberal Democrat MPs this week should be: is what has now been negotiated fairer and more progressive than the system Labour left behind? If it is, and I believe that it is, then I believe they should vote for it. For me, there is a simpler test. Under these new proposals, I know that an 18-year-old like me who had no parental income would be able to go to university. In the current economic climate, I can settle for that.
Secondly, Paddy Ashdown, a long proponent of fees, writes in the Telegraph
I do not believe it likely that all Liberal Democrats will vote in the same lobby on student fees tomorrow. But then, I never have. Perhaps I wish it were otherwise. But I knew it never would be. And, however much they pretend to shock at their supposed discovery of this obvious fact, anyone worth their salt as a commentator on politics should have known that, too.
Nick Clegg’s task has not been to seek to impose his will on his colleagues by coercion, as some seem to demand. That would never have worked. These are Liberal Democrats, who think for themselves, thank God. His achievement has been to bring them through this, united as a team, even if they cannot be united in the lobbies. To disagree without rancour.
Incidentally, Ashdown asks of that disagreement without rancour, “when, in our recent politics, did you see that before?” If Ashdown is talking of the other parties, the answer is not straightforward. But pose the same question of the Liberal Democrats, and Philip Cowley has the answer right to hand: “Lib Dems split three ways last month, but no one noticed.”
Writing on a wider point in the Guardian, Professor Cowley notes:
One of the ironies of the whole affair is that over the last decade the Lib Dems have been by far the most cohesive of the three main parties. Unlike the top-down approach of Labour and the Conservatives, the party’s parliamentarians would debate their stance internally, to try to agree collective positions. They’ve been trying to do the same with fees – hence the recent three-hour meeting of the parliamentary party. The trouble is that in government this doesn’t get plaudits for being consultative and inclusive, it gets derided for being weak. Three-hour meetings (at the end of which there still wasn’t a decision) are unfortunately a luxury of opposition.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
Three less conventional ways of looking at who supports Reform - The Week in Polls
Layla Moran on Gaza: "Starvation shouldn't be a weapon of war"
Peter Martin
Daniel Stylianou
Simon R
John Waller
Mick Taylor
108 Comments
For what it’s worth (not a lot I imagine) – here’s mine:
http://livingonwords.blogspot.com/2010/12/david-davis-and-his-non-role-in-tuition.html
Obviously this is going to pass now, despite the fact that the proposals haven’t even been properly explained yet, let alone properly discussed or scrutinised.
The written promises on the basis of which the Lib Dem MPs were elected have been casually tossed into the bin.
The proposals been sold as an improvement on the present system on the basis of a blatant deception about the repayment threshold, involving its effective reduction by stealth by about a third through its being deferred from 2012 to 2018-2019 – meaning that the threshold will be lower in comparison with earnings than the current threshold, for God’s sake!
Who knows what the real implications will be for higher education, for “social mobility,” or even for public spending? Naturally, there’s been no proper consideration of any of that – just raw, squalid political calculations about what will best serve the careers of the vacuous professional politicians who pass for statesmen these days.
I am passionatly against tuition fees and debated the matter at a public meeting with a prospective Conservative candidate, who unfortunately is now the local MP.
My eldest daughter was in that pioneer year of fees, was it six years ago I think. Interesting she was also the pioneer year of SATs at, 7 and 11 and the AS level exams at 16. Her year pioneered everything I think, they have been guinea pigs at every stage, and yet no-one seems to have realised that. Just a thankyou wouldn’t go amiss.
She is now 26, has had a meaningful job in London, but decided she wanted to widen her horizons and went to work in Korea as an English teacher. She is now back in the UK and doing a Post Grad teaching course, and doing teaching practice in a London school where writing your name puts you above average for the class.
She still owes over £20,000, and the debt is rising. At nearly 27 she has not yet earned enough to pay any of the money back.
So where do I now stand on tuition fees. Well I still think they should be abolished, but we cant afford it.
The system negotiated by the Lib Dems seems to be an ideal ‘get out of jail ‘, approach, as no-one will have to pay back any money for years to come. If the country stays in the doldrums its graduate citizens will have to cough up the money from their monthly pay check and thats just the way it will be.
However ….
I would hope that if another boom does happen, in 10-15 years time, those that benefit from that boom,will have the decency to write off the debts of those who had to borrow money for their education in current hard times.
It would be rather liking writing off Third World debt, which the Labour government seemed so keen to do.
Perhaps next time ‘charity should begin at home’, with our education system.
I voted in my first general election this year. My vote went to the liberal democrats as I thought they offered something different policy wise and in the way they conducted themselves. I believed libdems to be more honest and principled, i guess i was very very wrong.
On tuition fees i actually thought they would stick to their pledge. To think that i was proud to have voted for the libdems makes me physically sick now looking at it. I certainly would have thought twice about voting if i knew that this is how they would turn out in government. I guess the lures of power are too much for some people. If the libdems had any principles they would vote against the rise. They could stop this if they really wanted to.
I am going to make a pledge right now. I WILL NEVER VOTE LIBDEM AGAIN and unlike the party i will actually stick to it as will many of the people i have spoken to who feel like they’ve been stabbed in the back. You courted the student vote and then cast it aside as soon as you no longer needed it. Well i can tell you that we will never forget this and you will pay dearly the next time you come asking for our support. In 2015 prepare to be annihilated from parliament for a long time
The other Dan – there’s a theory of politics called the ‘garden gate’ – I suggest you look it up….
Wow.
Just seen Nick Clegg interviewed on Sky News regarding tuition fees.
Extraordinary. Extraordinary
How many ministers will resign Nick? You’re now to the Right of David Davis. Extraordinary.
“The system negotiated by the Lib Dems seems to be an ideal ‘get out of jail ‘, approach, as no-one will have to pay back any money for years to come.”
Yes, curious, isn’t it. Here we are, ostensibly straining every sinew to tame that deficit, and yet “the independent Higher Education Policy Institute believes …. the new policy is as likely to cost money as save it.”
http://exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/exquisite_life/2010/12/the-10-failures-of-nick-clegg-on-tuition-fees.html
Could it be that this is merely a staging post?
Labour 1988 were the pioneers who established that students should pay tuition fees – though fairly low fees.
LibCon 2010 are the pioneers who hope to establish that students should pay stonking great high tuition fees – but not quite really, not yet anyway.
Is the stage being set for the next actors (Con 2016?) to establish that students must pay stonking great high tuition fees, right here, right now?
Cuse – you may have seen Nick on Sky – but you clearly didn’t listen to what he said, otherwise you wouldn’t have posted your last paragraph…
Dan.
No, I was listening.
All 17 ministers will vote for it? Do you believe that? If they do – they’re toast.
If all 17 ministers make it to the weekend I’ll buy you a pint. Seeing as the agreement doesn’t include PPS’ – and Cameron negotiated PPS resignation into the Coalition if they didn’t vote for the Govt – they’ve already broken protocol.
And as for Clegg + his ministers being to the Right of David Davis? Never a truer word spoken.
Lord Rennard writes:
“Graduates will in future have to earn almost the average household income in this country before they start paying back the costs of the higher education”
One wonders what planet Lord Rennard is on. Or, perhaps, in what galaxy he resides!
As long ago as 2008-9 the average household income was £30,500. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/Taxes_Benefits_0809.pdf
Graduates will be paying back the costs when their incomes are £21,000. And that’s £21,000 in the money of 2016-2021, not today. By the midpoint of that period, on the basis of Treasury expectations, earnings will have risen by more than 40%.
So in fact graduates will start paying back when they are earning less than half the average household income!
Look forward to my pint. I’ll go further. There will be more Lib Dems voting in favour of the Browne+ proposals than voting against, there will be no resignations and none of them will be toast (although I expect my pint before 2015)…
Here’s a detailed dissection of Clegg’s nonsense in the FT, by William Cullerne Bown:
“This is not serious engagement with the substantive issues. It is spin.”
http://exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/exquisite_life/2010/12/how-to-read-nick-cleggs-article-on-tuition-fees-in-todays-ft.html
And he points out yet another respect in which the government has taken Browne’s proposals (which recommended a 30-year repayment) and made them worse, not better, for graduates – this is new to me:
“Currently students only pay for 25 years. Under the government’s scheme, they will be paying (probably, this is another big fact the government is keeping obscure) for 35 years. It’s the slipperiness and willingness to mislead with these sorts of claims that is so undermining to the government’s case.”
Someone like me with no parental support could go to university: Bully for you! My kids can’t even with parental support!
Old system: maintenance allowance plus mandatory non-repayable bursary of £300 plus mens tested university bursaries varying from the £300 to £3000 per annum at Oxbridge. All sums able to be used by the student to cover accomodation and living costs.
New system: maintenance allowance to include the £300 which was formerly a bursary and now is part of the repayable amount. Announced as ‘a rise in maintenance allowances (!).
Maintenance bursaries to be replaced by narrowly focused fee remission scheme for those who previously received free school meals ie those whose families were on a passport benefit.
No bursaries = student must live on maintenance allowance plus parental contributions. Impossible for most benefit dependant families, low wage families and even many middle income families to make such contributions.
So, now the student has c. £5250 to live on. Sounds good. But then fees for accommodation at say Falmouth can run to £4200 per annum. So now teh student has £1050 per annum to pay for food, clothes, books, travel and trips. Thats £20.19 per week. Gosh its looking tight! Better not apply to any of the expensive living cost universities like Bristol or London. Stay at home. Mmmm… not an option in many rural areas.
And after three years of this the lucky student will be left with a debt of between £22,000 (if lucky enough to get ‘scholarship’) and £45,000. This is subject to market rate interest and is unlikely to reduce. On Nick’s calculations it would take some student’s 400years to cover it.
No problem because it’ll just get written off.
BUT remember the fee debt now owed by the student WILL be used in mortgage calculations and will therefore restrict the appllcant’s ability to buy housing. Don’t worry after a few decades it will be written off and they can buy then… only of course you’ll have spent years paying high rents to private landlords as there is no longer any concept of ‘affordable housing’ being put forward by the governemnt. and their own children will be struggling to get through their education. If you do pay it off early you’ll be subject to penalties anyway.
Why bother? I wouldn’t go near university under these circumstances. It is the worst set of HE proposals ever. Almost designed to cut out families on benefits and low earners. Making life very difficult for middle earners and leaving high earners smiling. Having disastorous long term effects on the lives of graduates and not even helping reduce the deficit in real terms except of course through the sell off of the loan book (which opens another can of worms and is part of the reason all this is goping ahead)
Nick is either duplicitous or stupid on this one.
Sorry about all the typo’s and grammar errors. I am actually so angry about the ‘yes’ vote by LD ministers I can hardly see the keyboard.
what utter rubbish. So in the current economic climate the only way out is to charge students more??
1. what about the likes of Trident?
2. Any money saved will only be apparent in a few years’ time when the economic situation won’t be the same.
This is Tory policy through and through. For someone to believe the rhetoric that it is the best possible because of the economic situation is a fool at best.
Absolutely right Mary.
I agree many Lib Dems making noises about ‘making up their minds’ are going to vote ‘yes’ or ‘abstain’. Then they’ll spend forever nauseatingly explaining why its all such a good scheme.
As for being ‘toast’. Maybe not immediately. However the line between ‘orange bookers’ and ‘social liberals’ has emerged and can only be exposed further as time goes on. As for the electorate Lib Dems will have jettisoned their previous voters in favour of the illusive and nebulous ‘new voter’. This new voter will appear once the economy turns and they realise just how the Lib Dems were such a key part in making it happen.
This new voter will not appear. Any kudos will go to the Conservatives.
@Dan
” In 2015 prepare to be annihilated from parliament for a long time”
We have the AV vote and May elections before then. Be a few Lib Dem councillors losing their allowances! I do not expect them to be very happy especially if they rely on them, it is far more than many in work earn. They may have to join the ‘scrounger’ queue down the Job Centre along with quite a few Tories but with all the attacks on Welfare condoned by Clegg they will learn the hard way exactly what has happened in that direction. Tuition fees is but one issue, there are many others. Welfare, attacks on ESA, DLA, and JSA, housing benefit. the NHS ‘reforms’, 80% reduction in teaching grants to universities, removing EMA, selling off our forests, removing animal welfare protection etc etc etc etc etc etc All nodded through with pats on the back.
When my daughter and I saw her £12000 debt on paper our blood ran cold. She is terrified of that debt, she never would have gone to university with that trebling neither would my son who is at university now. The new fees do not affect them but they and I care about those coming behind them, perhaps even their own children one day. We and all protesting students, lecturers and their family members are more ‘Big Society’ than the coalition members who care only about their own gravy train. I pledge to vote Lib Dem (ha ha)
.
The way out is for the idea of those on Free school dinners getting their first year free to be expanded. If more than the estimated 18,000 were to be included then that would make a huge difference to the look and feel of the package. Simples
@Anne
Totally agree. So many issues. I think those issues will bind people together across the country and from all walks of life. I am concerned about the attack on disabled people, the lack of vision for growth that means jobs lost, the attack on education and the list goes on….
@Ian
Fee remission does not help with maintenance.; Maintenance issues are not addressed and these threaten to put a barrier to accessing university in the first place by low income groups.
and finally… arghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
With the large number of HE students – perhaps that will soon read the PREVIOUSLY large number? – fees of some kind are probably inevitable. But my ex party (the Lib Dems) signs a specific pledge, and then claims that a huge hike in fees is fair and progressive. It is now said that those claiming free school meals will be exempt – but many on low incomes do not qualify. Parent in full time work, low-paid and thus receiving Working Tax Credit? No free school meals!
Couple that with the end of EMA and Connexions and we see which sections of Society are paying the highest price in the current situation – the growing ranks of unemployed, and the young (except the wealthy young and, perhaps, those at the very bottom of the pile).
I’m so glad my children are in their thirties and in homes of their own. Suppose they’d been a few years younger? Meantime, I can enjoy my winter fuel allowance and free bus pass, without means test of course. Who is more important to the nation’s future – myself or a 16 year old?
It’s a bizarre thing to say about Chris Rennard, but he of all people should recognise the electoral significance of people not keeping a promise. Until he can answer that, then all thoughts on the Government’s proposals (and I’ve just spent the evening with a friend who works in HE laying down the cuts going on in higher education, giving the lie to those who claim this will mean the same amount of money) are so much hot air.
Clegg (smugly) announced to the BBC that this was the best policy. Not a fact of coalition, not a compromise reached after much soul searching, but the best policy.
But it’s not the policy of the party (although he tried to change this). It’s a direct breaking of a promise and he deserves to be destroyed at the next election. Don’t worry they will find him a nice safe Tory seat soon after.
Goodbye electoral reform, goodbye hundreds of council seats, goodbye integrity, goodbye votes. The people I feel most sorry for are the principled councillors who will lose and the principled workers and party members who knocked on doors and meant what they said in May. The next time they knock on doors they will be accused of being liars.
So much for accountability and internal democracy. Once elected he does what he wants.
No more broken promises….
Wonderful post Mary.
Please keep speaking out for those of us who cannot do so freely.
That’s it as far as the LibDems are concerned. They are now just third-rate Tories. Clegg has managed to change the LibDems into another Tory party in 6 months, and without consulting the party. Clever stuff. But that’s me finished.
@Dan Falchikov
Posted 7th December 2010 at 11:34 pm | Permalink
For what it’s worth (not a lot I imagine) – here’s mine:
http://livingonwords.blogspot.com/2010/12/david-davis-and-his-non-role-in-tuition.html
One sentence in particular stood out for me in your blog
I am now convinced that this sorry saga has taught them a valuable lesson – it’s even more important in a hung government to hang together than in opposition
That sort of sums it up at the moment – what you are saying is that all that talk from Clegg et al at the time of the election was just the rough and tumble of politics.. and you think that voting for these proposals makes the Lib Demsgrown up and are more proper politicians… and that you can shrug this off and get on with being in government.
I have always suspected some Lib Dems of rank hypocrisy and this confirms it completely.
I
We have to be extraordinarily careful here. Gareth’s point about HE cuts is of course echoed across local government run services across the country, in school education, and I am sure in the NHS. The fact that Nick Clegg is now ablle to boast that all ministers will vote for tuition fees rise doesn’t really address these cuts and the devastating effect they will have. Threats of the end of the world for Britain (made by the LD leadership to counter economic analyses different from theirs) are clearly way overblown, but only by decisively debunking those threats so that the public realise the financial threat is not as presented, will those anti the cuts be able to move to a position of ascendancy. We may of course be helped by similar groups in the Tory Party, and non-NuLab elements in Labour.
Look at it this way – if the 1980s were a disaster for Britain, which they were, these cuts risk the wholesale disintegration of society here. There’s an awful lot at stake.
Steve Way
I am sorry I cannot share your sympathy with the many councillors who will pay the price for this deceit in May. It is your party and you are all responsible for its actions. Why did you agree to the coalition agreement in its current form – knowing that this situation would arise? Why is the party not instructing its leadership to follow party policy? Why are Liberal Democrat councillors not bombarding the party leadership with demands to oppose this policy? Why are constituency parties not demanding that their MPs vote against? Why are local parties not making it clear that they will de-select sitting MPs who oppose party policy and break their pledges to the electorate?
There are so many things that could be done and are not. You are all complicit.
So Dave, where are you going to go?
The Tories are in favour of Tuition Fees, Labour brought them in back in 1997 having said, whilst in opposition, that they were against them. They had a majority in Parliament then and had no need to compromise. Even now they prefer to go down the route of a Graduate Tax.
I stood infront of students at Walsall College earlier this year and said that we were opposed to Tuition Fees. I still believe that as a Party that is the case, but get real, we are in coalition, we haven’t got a majority Lib Dem Government so compromises have to be made, I know, I’ve been there. Here in Walsall we have been in coalition on at least three occations. It’s no good throwing the baby out with the bath water.
As Liberal Democrats we are achieving a great deal in coalition. This Government is far better for having us in it believe me, we currently have a Tory Administration in Walsall and left to their own devises they are a totally different animal to that which we are seeing at Westminster.
I don’t like what is going to happen on Thursday but I can understand why we wil be doing it and I will remain within the Party and continue to fight for what I believe in, anything else would be a cop out and meaningless.
Another (more cynical?) way of looking at it, from party advantage terms. Many posts on here recently have looked at other coalitions down the years between Liberal and Tory, and have drawn the conclusion that Liberals generally gain little credit or electoral benefit from these arrangements. One arrangement, however, which finally saw us off as a major political force for more or less 30 years, was the World War 2 coalition. Labour stood, at the end of the war, saying “we will make arrangements to make it clear that ‘we are all in this together'” against parties who stood for business as usual. Labour were prepared for the social and economic consequences of that – the rather undynamic Liberal Party of that time were not, and until Jo Grimond emerged another 10 or so years later, the party was finally on the skids to its likely demise.
Is that what the current inheritors of our tradition want? Do they really think we can withstand the austerity merely by pretending “we’re all in it together”? And with likely changes resulting from either / or changing to a low carbon economy / adapting to a totally different climatic country and world, should we not be rehearsing the way we ‘divide the spoils’ as it were?
@Nigel
“There are so many things that could be done and are not. You are all complicit.”
I’m not a party member but did vote Lib Dem at the last election.
If you look at my previous posts on this subject I have been consistent in my condemnation of the leadership, as have many members. David Allen wrote an excellent and thoughtful piece just a couple of days ago.
Over 100 PPC’s recently wrote to the leadership reminding them of their pledge, councillors up and down the land have done likewise. The policy committee have also re-stated the current policy effectively meaning that Clegg is now whipping a vote against the agreed policy of the party.
Unless the direction (and Leadership) of the party changes I will not be voting Lib dem again, and like many others will no longer support electoral reform which benefits a party whose leadership have shown themselves to have such low integrity. At this point in time I will not risk giving Clegg more power that he will use for Tory ideology.
But that does not mean I do not respect those who have been trying to hold the leadership to account including many on this forum and, I suspect, the vast majority of those who will lose their seats because of the actions of the leadership.
One other point from William Cullerne Bown’s blog post is worth emphasising. In response to Clegg’s assertion that it would be “economically and socially suicidal” to cut the number of university places, he says:
“That sounds attractive. But the government has not promised to maintain the number of university places. Indeed, if it opts to make the policy neutral in terms of borrowing over the lifetime of this parliament, there is likely to be a cut in university student numbers of about one third. ONE THIRD. This points up one of the fundamental problems with the Coalition’s approach. It is asking everyone to buy a pig in a poke. Huge questions about the policy remain unanswered. And Clegg here is not answering them.”
If it opts to make the policy neutral in terms of borrowing, student numbers will be cut by a third.
Now I don’t think that would be a bad thing. But it certainly goes dead against the received political wisdom, and I don’t think the proponents of this policy (or rather, half-baked muddle) have thought it through at all.
And Labour is finally getting its act together, with Alan Johnson backing a graduate tax:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11946351
Bottom line Thursday’s vote has become a case of either hang together or we’ll hang seperately folks.
Showing ministers at least have cojones is not an adequate definition on the New Politics we hoped for just the some old same old expediancy. Paddy’s piece in the DT is plain silly.
Students are being offered 3x the debt on (arguably) slightly better terms. None of us would regard that as an improvement in our personal circumstances and it is quite clear that students think the same.
And it has been so badly handled. Lamentable. We negotiate in the coalition agreement that we can abstain on this. Then we announce it and take ownership of it telling people how good it is. We seem surprised at the upset caused by the fact this is the exact opposite of what we said we would do and that we are leading the way – not following out of compulsion – on doing it. Then we say it’s all because of coalition and we would not do this if we had won. Then we say no, no sorry we would do this cos actually it is the best possible system because people on average income should not have to pay to educate richer people. Then Vince says he may abstain from supporting this best possible system. Then Nick says all ministers will support it and actually they will not abstain even though he negotiated so that we could abstain. And although we will vote for it without needing to don’t think it’s our fault – if more people had voted for us at the election we would we would be abolshing fees and that would be the most “progressive” system too…
At the back of it all you have to wonder what they actually think they are doing and why. And without wanting a socialist analysis you have to say it suits the class interest of the cabinet, pegging their input to that of graduates on middle incomes. Now a truly progressive system…
@ Mary “BUT remember the fee debt now owed by the student WILL be used in mortgage calculations and will therefore restrict the appllcant’s ability to buy housing.”
No it won’t. The former student’s net income will be used in mortgage calculations; given that repayments will be lower for many under this scheme, it may very well be an improvement.
@ Matt – EMA
I would be interested to see the figures/research you have to back up your claim “hundreds of thousands of youngsters will not be able to afford to study A-levels” as opposed to a random assertion.
I mean ‘cos hardly anyone did A levels before EMA.
The reason fees are going up is because both Labour and Conservative parties support increasing fees. The reason fees are going up is because only 23% of the population voted for a party that planned to phase them out. The reason Lib Dem ministers will vote for this is because it’s the price to pay for getting a system that includes increasing the repayment threshold, the price to pay for ensuring that the 40% of students who are part time don’t have to pay up front fees, the price to pay for the ‘student premium’ to reduce fees for those who got free school meals, and the price to pay for variable interest rates meaning higher earners pay more.
So to use your words “don’t you dare” spout such nonsense about fees; “shame on you” for peddling it.
@ Dan with his first ever vote. I’m sorry you feel that way; but personally the kind of things in politics that make me feel sick are things like: being lied to about the need to go to war; the fact that our government was involved in torture; the treatment of Gurkhas; the screwed up system of benefits that gives money to familes on £50 grand, but lets the disabled live on poverty wages, having to complete numerous 40 page forms to justify it.
That’s what makes me feel sick – not an unfortunate and very public u-turn. I also feel sick that people don’t get coalition.
Actually this whole debate makes me realise how screwed up the public’s priorities are.
@ Mary who said 12.54: ‘This new voter will not appear. Any kudos will go to the Conservatives’.
I don’t know yet whether this ‘new voter’ will appear or not but I agree totally that the kudos of any recovery will go to the Tories because in the event of a recovery they will ditch the coalition before their final give-away budget to make sure they get the sole credit and electoral gain.
The Tories will already be looking at the LibDems and have calculated they will be a busted flush at the next election so they won’t be of any further use to them and as AV is going down the pan – thanks to Clegg – the Tories will be happy to fight on a FPTP basis.
Fascinating exchange on video at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8187407/John-Bercow-clashes-with-Tory-chief-whip-in-House-of-Commons.html
Bercow and the Tory Chief Whip clash when the Coalition tried to limit debate on Thursday over tuition fees to 3 hours yest that’s right THREE HOURS.
It’s obvious they still don’t have the details worked out and are frightened at how exposed they are going to look.
ok my post was deleted, so I will try again with an edited version.
Why Voice feels the need to edit my post though, whilst allowing other posters in the past to use and get away with the most extreme profanities is beyond me, but here goes anyway
………………………………………………..
I am so {Annoyed} with the betrayal of Liberal Democrat Ministers
I am even more {ticked} off with the Smug attitude of Nick Clegg.
Nick claims that in government with little money and tough decisions, they chose to spend on younger students instead.
What a load of {poo ppoo}
The Pupil Premium is Recycled money, and not new money as promised, partly coming from the abolishing of EMA
The abolishing of EMA will mean, many hundreds of thousands of youngsters will not be able to afford to study A-levels, let alone go on to a degree.
Yes tuition fee’s needed to go up, but not by tripling them, The Teaching Budget did not need to be cut by 80%
The Government blames the deficit for the reason University fee’s have to go up, and yet these Tuition fee’s repayments do not come into effect until 2015/16. The Coalition says the deficit will be paid off by 2015. so this is just more {whopise}
The only reason to increase tuition fee’s, remove the teaching budget and dump all the cost on the students, is because its the 1st step in the step in the Tory plan to Marketize our universities. It’s creating a society where only the elite and the rich, can afford a decent university education and go on to careers in the likes of medicine, science, law, e.t.c.
Liberal Democrats, supporting this destruction of our education system, is unforgivable.
Don’t you dare tell us, that you have to make compromises in coalitions as a junior partner,
Don’t you dare have the audacity to tell us, that it is still party policy to abolish fee’s over 6 years, if you where to win an election outright,
Don’t you dare tell us again to vote for change, vote for something different, vote for liberal democrat.
And don’t you dare ever make another promise/pledge to the public, when your spineless immoral MP’s lack the moral fibre to stick to it,
Don’t you dare, try and convince people that AV is a fairer voting system, when AV delivers more hung parliaments, And Liberal Democrats as a smaller party, wants the power sharing of government, without the accountability to its constituents.
Shame on the Party
“given that repayments will be lower for many under this scheme, it may very well be an improvement.”
(I presume you mean annual repayments!)
But the threshold will be lower in comparison with earnings than the current one – according to the Treasury’s own expectations of earnings growth. So the only way someone will be paying less annually under the new scheme will be if they slip down the earnings scale.
For someone at the same point on the earnings scale (i.e. at the same percentile), annual repayments will be higher, not only in cash terms, but also in comparison with prices and earnings.
Grammar Police –
So you at least are clear about this. We think this fees policy makes things worse. The good bits of the policy you list are incidental and your primary position is that fees should go down and or be abolished. We have been able to mitigate the consequences of a bad policy imposed on us by Cameron and Conservatives. Our policy at the next election will be to reduce or abolish tuition fees (should have the student vote flocking to us). If more than 23% of the voters support us (more than 2.3% more like) then that is what they will get.
As for the Iraq dig. I agree with you about Labour MPs voting for a war they knew was wrong. What I find intriguing about this is how our MPs are voting for a policy they told us a few months ago was wrong and which you clearly set out is at best a harmful policy mitigated by trimming at the edges. Especially odd as the party almost unanimously voted for a deal under which they could abstain. Why then take ownership of this policy and then pretend that we don’t support what we announced?
David Lawson at 9.45 says it all.
If it is such a good and progressive scheme then why did the coalition have to have an abstention get-out clause. It couldn’t have been such a big issue to LibDem MPs or the actual policy anyway as it wasn’t red-lined although it certainly has been orange-booked.
New announcements about three further tinkerings with the tuition fees system – all sound a bit technical and it will need to be for other to work out how effective they will be.
So the LibDem ministers sold out on the cheap – if they had fought harder they might have got bigger concessions from the Tories.
Aaron Porter has just dished the three changes on TV.
@Grammar police
Grammar Police
“No it won’t. The former student’s net income will be used in mortgage calculations; given that repayments will be lower for many under this scheme, it may very well be an improvement. ”
Sorry, but that’s nonsnese. Net income will obviously be affected by loan repayments, therefore the increase in the size of the loans will directly impact on the ability of graduates to (a) save for a deposit for a house; a significant factor in obtaining a mortgage and (b) impair their ability to service a mortgage, impacting their ability to pay down the mortgage faster (and thus increase equity) and their ability to save to mitigate any future changes in the mortgage interest and/or their own circumstances (for a period of 30 years of fee repayments!). The tuition fee proposals hit middle income earners the hardest, leaving the majority of graduates in a weaker position to compete for housing against non-graduates and graduates on high incomes.
@Grammar Police
“I mean ‘cos hardly anyone did A levels before EMA.
The reason fees are going up is because both Labour and Conservative parties support increasing fees. The reason fees are going up is because only 23% of the population voted for a party that planned to phase them out. The reason Lib Dem ministers will vote for this is because it’s the price to pay for getting a system that includes increasing the repayment threshold, the price to pay for ensuring that the 40% of students who are part time don’t have to pay up front fees, the price to pay for the ‘student premium’ to reduce fees for those who got free school meals, and the price to pay for variable interest rates meaning higher earners pay more.
So to use your words “don’t you dare” spout such nonsense about fees; “shame on you” for peddling it.”
What utter Dross, You obviously have no idea what your talking about.
Liberal Democrats have been supporters of plural politics and the idea of them being involved in coalition governments, That means being accountable in government.
Getting 23% of the public vote and giving your party the opportunity to be a part of Government, meant Liberal Democrats, had the chance to prove to the electorate, that they where different, No more lies, No more Broken Promises.
The policy is not progressive above Middle income earners, in fact it is regressive.
Students from well off families who will pay off their fee’s up front, avoid all the debt interest incurred by Lower and middle income graduates, How is that fairer? Graduates who go on to higher wages, will be able to afford to pay off their loans much quicker, avoiding being saddled with debt and higher interest payments.
Since when was it Liberal Democrat Policy to Virtually remove all funding for University Education and dump the cost on to the students?
In Fact, it is still party policy to abolish fee’s over 6 years, so if a snap election was called next month, It would still Liberal Democrat policies campaign to abolish fee’s. If that is the Parties Policies, How can your ministers Vote to Increase fee’s and cut funding by 80% it is shambolic.
So yes I will shout dont you dare again and again @ your party
Because it is 2 faced, Immoral, and unfit for government
In my opinion
It took Labour years to break my heart; it has taken Liberal Democrats just months.
There is nothing progressive about these measures nor can anyone convince me that they are economically necessary. It takes a sophistry worthy of a dodgy loans salesman to claim that they are making education more fair.
It is of note that a higher proportion of Conservative MPs who signed the NUS pledge than of Lib Dem MPs who did the same are promising to honour their words.
Tim Starkey is a too rare voice of decency in this debate whose intelligent, principled response to this policy reminds me of the reasons why you won my vote last time. I hope there are more of you like him.
It is not too late to do the right thing. People will forget that you wavered: they will never forget the consequences if this hasty, ill-considered, injust reform of further education goes ahead.
“I would be interested to see the figures/research you have to back up your claim “hundreds of thousands of youngsters will not be able to afford to study A-levels” as opposed to a random assertion.”
Hundreds of thousands may be putting it a bit high, but I don’t think there’s room for complacency here.
One fact that the £150m sweetener did bring out is that only about one in eight of pupils on free school meals currently go on to university – compared with nearly half of the population as a whole.
@Grammar Police
30% of UG students studying at any time are part time, but only 10% of a given graduating cohort (source: HESA Students in Higher Education Instititutions 2008/9, and HESA DLHE 2008/9).
Someone has been using misleading stats.
Furthermore, a proportion of those part-time students are essentially undertaking employer-funded CPD and so will not be, themselves, affected. About an eighth of part-time students are studying nursing, for example.
What this highlights is doublespeak.
It seems that we have to put more fees on graduates because it’s unfair that 34% of the population (the proportion of the workforce with HE qualifications – or, if you like, 43%, the proportion of current cohorts who go to university) should be ‘subsidised’ by the rest of the populations, BUT that these proposals are good because around 30% of the student population may not be worse off.
If a policy benefits 30% of a population, is it ‘good’ or not?
I Fear now, that it is going to take the Liberal Democrats U-Turn on control orders, to kick this shambolic coalition out.
And does anyone actually doubt for 1 minute that Control Orders will not be Renewed?
There is nothing in the coalition agreement, that allows ministers to abstain on control orders either, (not that, that makes any difference anyway to a Liberal Democrat) therefore all Ministers will be whipped to support the renewed Policy.
What excuses are we going to hear from party supporters this time I wonder.
Will Control Orders be the Liberal Democrats, Thin Red Line.
And if so, why would you have allowed a total betrayal to all the students and the destruction of our Education System, which will take YEARS to put right
Lynne Featherstone 2002:
“I welcome the fact that some Labour MPs have already spoken out against top-up fees – recognising that if the government breaks its promises on this issue students will suffer as access to university courses is determined by wealth rather than ability.”
http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2002/11/top-up-fees-mp-roche-challenged.htm
Sarah Teather 2003:
“Students beginning GCSEs and hoping to go to university in the future could face extraordinary levels of debt – £33,000 according to Barclays Bank. That is more than my parents’ mortgage.
“I feel intense frustration when we talk of widening participation, only then to debate introducing a policy which would deter the very students we hope to attract. Fear of debt is as real to many people as real debt.
“Top-up and tuition fees are serious issues of concern to my constituents. All the evidence suggests that fear of debt will deter those from lower income families and ethnic minority communities. This is particularly the case for Muslims – a large community in my constituency – where attitudes to debt are very different.
“Fundamentally, I believe that this is about whether we want to encourage a world class education system, or a class based education system where students choose universities according to their ability to pay, and universities are judged on the level of their fees.
“That is not a system I am comfortable with. It is an issue of great concern to my constituents, and many millions of people around this country. I hope honourable members will oppose the measures when the time comes.”
http://www.brentlibdems.org.uk/news/000078/newest_mp_lambasts_tuition_and_topup_fees_in_maiden_speech.html
Some of you are going to vote for a policy that you know is wrong. Others I hope will put their principles and their concern for their constituents first.
Cable announces improved higher education package [11.13 am Wed 8th Dec]:
http://www.twickenhamlibdems.co.uk/news/003154/cable_announces_improved_higher_education_package.html
The Bill will pass, the Tories will bounce, the Libs will collapse, and education in this country has been sold off. Scandalous.
Vince Cable confirms again
http://www.twickenhamlibdems.co.uk/news/003154/cable_announces_improved_higher_education_package.html
“that threshold is then uprated in future years. As announced on 3 November, that income threshold will be £21,000 as from 2016, compared with the current threshold of £15,000”
So £21k will be more like £17.5k in real terms, rather than the 21k they are claiming
It’s still regressive above middle incomes. Higher earning graduates will contribute a smaller proportion of their income to higher education than those on middle incomes. It’s still tory ideology.
“As announced on 3 November, that income threshold will be £21,000 as from 2016 …”
But of course, this _wasn’t_ announced on 3 November. In his statement to the Commons, Willetts went to great lengths to avoid making that clear. In fact, he went so far as to tell one MP that he suspected the threshold would be higher than median earnings in his constituency. That would certainly not be true in 2016. Willetts clearly misled the House.
He also avoided saying that the plan was for the threshold to be revised only every five years, despite being asked to clarify what he meant by “periodically.”
Obviously that was just a bit of sleight of hand to reduce the threshold by 10-12%, in effect. So it’s good news that that’s been dropped. But it still leaves the threshold at only 80% of what Browne recommended, so please let’s not have any more claims about how much Cable has “improved” the proposals.
Per the Coalition agreement
“If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements WILL (my emphasis) be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote”
This raises a number of questions
1. Have Liberal Democrats accepted the Government’s repsonse to the Browne report?
2. Have arrangements been made to allow ALL Liberal Democrat MPs (including those in Government) to abstain in any vote, or are they being whipped or otherwise encoraged to vote for the proposals?
3. Are there different arrangements for some Liberal Democrat MPs who happen to be ministers – if so why wasn’t this reflected in the Coalition agreement?
4. Are other undertakings in the Coalition agreement likely to be treated in a similar manner? e.g. Nuclear Power, transferable allowances between married couples.
5. Given that Nick Clegg has form on having different beliefs from the formally documented position could he now come clean on where he stands on the Coalition agreement?
Or can we assume that lying through one’s teeth in order to obtain power is now the normal modus operandii of Liberal Democrats?
@GrammerPolice
“Actually this whole debate makes me realise how screwed up the public’s priorities are”
That’s not really fair. All the public are expecting is their elected representatives to behave as they have promised. Lib Dem MP’s made a pledge, this is not a u-turn but a betrayal. The pledge was unambiguous and freely taken. Clegg used student fees in his election broadcast of “no more broken promises”. We understand coalition requires compromise on policy, the manifesto cannot be fulfilled, but the pledge is entirely different.
The public want to be able to trust their representatives. That’s not a “screwed up priority”, it’s the basis of democracy.
I can’t believe how patronising Ashdown in this interview with a student, just not willing to take concerns on board at all. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11947701?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Per Ashdown ” Nick Clegg’s task has not been to seek to impose his will on his colleagues by coercion………..”
So all those Lib Dems in Government will not lose their jobs/be expected to resign if they abstain/vote against the proposals. It would appear that “coercion” has a different meaning in LibDem land from elsewhere.
“Meanwhile, as students across the country prepare for their final protests ahead of the vote, a letter signed by board members of Universities UK urging MPs to support the rise has been published in The Daily Telegraph.
UUK had originally hoped to include a letter signed by all English vice-chancellors, but a number refused to comply.
Three board members – Les Ebdon of the University of Bedfordshire, Caroline Gipps of the University of Wolverhampton and Paul O’Prey of Roehampton University – have also declined to sign.”
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=414534&c=1
Vince Cable keeps coming out with so called ‘concessions’. Does this not mean that the whole Tuition Fee issue and indeed the whole university funding issue has been badly thought out and rushed through?
The vote should be suspended so that the full impact be scrutinised bearing in mind that a third of universities may be at risk from government cuts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11940832
First of all, let’s see what happens tomorrow. Let’s see how many Liberal Democrat MPs have the courage to stand up to Clegg and Cameron and vote against these appalling proposals, as they undertook to do in May.
If a substantial number do vote against (say 14+) it may be possible for the members to force Clegg and his fellow collaborators out at the Spring Conference and save the party from the abyss. The brand will be badly damaged, yes, and more than half the Parliamentary Party will be unelectable. But there might still be a chance. If, on the other hand, a substantial majority falls in line with Clegg and Cameron, I think it will be game over. No more party. Just a collection of dead ducks whose only hope of keeping their jobs will be merger with the Tory Party – something I suspect Clegg has been planning for since he sent his attack dogs out to trash Ming Campbell.
What am I to do? I have belonged to the Liberal Democrats since the party was founded. Before that I spent eight years in the SDP. Can I go on supporting a party that props up a right-wing Tory government, lies to the electorate, and is led by (fill in adjectives of choice) Clegg? I, and many others, will be disenfranchised. What are we to do?
@Anne
I agree entirely
It is totally irresponsible to be voting for an increase in fees, BEFORE, the entire policies on repayment terms, concessions, e.t,c, have been put on the table.
It does not make sense to vote for an increase in fee’s, until the whole package is known.
How is an MP supposed to make an INFORMED decision, without the whole facts,
It is utterly irresponsible for any MP to vote for these increases on that basis.
“I, and many others, will be disenfranchised. What are we to do?”
Join the silent majority, I suppose, who concluded some time ago that politicians couldn’t be trusted (and that those who claim to be “different” are often the worst of all).
@ Nigel
“Why did you agree to the coalition agreement in its current form – knowing that this situation would arise? Why is the party not instructing its leadership to follow party policy? ”
A Lib Dem minsiter was appointed to the portfolio with responsibility for student grants – Vince Cable. Frankly it never crossed my mind that he would propose a policy that overrode his own pledge. I suspect the same applies to many others, including MPs.
Why are Liberal Democrat councillors not bombarding the party leadership with demands to oppose this policy?
They are: see for example the Leader of Newcastle City Council: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11937946
“Why are constituency parties not demanding that their MPs vote against? Why are local parties not making it clear that they will de-select sitting MPs who oppose party policy and break their pledges to the electorate? ”
They are: you are just not hearing (or not wanting to hear) about it. Here’s another example, where unsuccessful general eleciton candidates petition Lib Dems in teh hosue of Commons: http://derekdeedman.mycouncillor.org.uk/liberal-democrats-parliamentary-candidates-petition/
The truth is that the party is bitterly divided. Only the hostile and mendatious say that all Liberal Democrats support Vince Cable’s policy.
I expect the party will be very significantly damaged if there is not a very significant rebellion tomorrow, and a significant rebellion is probably not enough.
From my own prospective, I was expecting to stand for a District Council in May. My prospective running mate (a sitting councillor whose priority is the community rather than party) is likely to defect to the Tories if I do not stand with him on the Lib Dem ticket. Unless there is a significant rebellion tomorrow (and that may not be enough), I will not stand, and will give up my membership of the party. The irony is that otherwise I have few gripes with the approach of the party to the coalition, which generally deserves support. We (how long will I be able to say that?) are doing good things, and preventing the Tories from doing (some) bad things. The same applied when I was previosuly a councillor, in coalition with Labour. Here are the reasons:
1) The broken pledge.
a) I do not see why my money and time should go to support those who say one thing and do another.
b) In future, whenever if I were to say I was a member of the party, I am likely to be labeled as a liar by people I respect. I am not sure I can live with that.
2) Downright stupidity. Many of the Lib Dem members of the government (eg Clegg, Cable, Hulme, Alexander) are on the record as saying they always thought the pledge was a bad idea. Why did they sign it? Why did Cowley Street order every candidate to sign it? They knew a hung parliament was a possibility – polls had been predicting it for months, and had been discussing tactics in at least Feburary 2010. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tuition-fees-clegg
3) It’s about education (1) . This kind of charging extra for education is iliberal, and should be anathema to a truely Liberal party. Those who benefit already pay back by contributing higher rates of tax. As someone else has said in this thread, it’s far more important than health. Other money could and should have been found. I believe it’s highly unlikely the charging students will ever be reversed.
4) It’s about education (2). I am one of those who cannot live with the marketisation of universities.
sadly just watched the news and I think all those with a nice job will vote for the fees to be increased.
I think it is becoming usual to contrast Orange Bookers with Social Liberals and ( perhaps ) to consider that the former are for tuition fee increases.
However, I would consider myself to be something of an Orange Booker and I am against tuition fees per se for the simply reason that is inappropriate for a young adult to have a significant amount of debt before they have either earnings or their own capital. Surely the prudent market orientated Orange Book Liberals must at heart be concerned on that point?
Tuition fees were always wrong in principle in an individual economic context. That has not changed.
“Students are being offered 3x the debt ”
I think you need to look up some figures and facts. Fees do not make up all of the loan amount. In fact the last predictions I read were that students would leave with just over a £30k debt, as compared to the current average estimate of £21k. That’s about a 50% increase, not a 300% increase as you suggest.
And looking further at the repayments graph recently published by the Government, and on the BBC webite, the estiamte is that unless you will be earning over 50k average lifetime salary, your total repayment will be about 13% more than under the current system, and even at the highest end of the wage scale the repayment is less than doubled.
I’m not arguing for against here, but bandying around scare factors like “a trebling of debt” is doing exactly what people claim to not want to happen, to scare people away from university. I just think it’s wrong to use scare tactics and damage people’s future just to try and argue your case. Agree or disagree, but please use facts and not made up scary numbers to make your arguments.
The CRUCIAL TEST for ALL LIBDEMS is dead simple. What was promised to the electorate that resulted in the trust and votes of many thousands, perhaps millions of people. Any other consideration is utter rubbish and fraudulent “old politics”.
@Alex
You are forgetting to factor in the cost of borrowing the maintenance Loan on top the fee’s Loan, Which adds over 10k on top of the fee’s.
People studying full time at university can not claim out of work benefits, hence the reason they are given a measly £3’500 a year Maintenance loan instead.
That pushes the tuition fee’s loan up to around the 40k mark
Interesting that David Davis MP says he will vote against the fees rise. A Conservative who hasn’t forgotten his roots on a Council estate.
The coalition cabinet does contain at least one liberal who’s prepared to stand up and be counted. Have you seen what Ken Clarke proposes on sentencing policy?! I guess if Clegg were Cameron’s Home Secretary he’d be explaining that deporting petty offenders to cost-effective Chinese prisons was a landmark in social reform.
@chris
Agreed.
And lets not forget that police numbers are about to be slashed dramatically, and trainee police officers are going to be expected to do MORE unpaid policing hours, to make up the shortfall.
What a lovely message we are sending to people thinking of serving on our police forces.
Come Train to be a police officer, we wont pay you, you will be expected to work more unpaid hours, OH and Before We Forget. The Odds of you getting stabbed may significantly increase, as we are relaxing our sentencing laws, But not to worry, If you are injured in the line of duty, You can claim from the criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, But you may have to wait 5 years plus for a payment.
@Alex
“That’s about a 50% increase, not a 300% increase as you suggest. ”
x3 = 200% increase, not 300% as you incorrectly stated.
“I think you need to look up some figures and facts.”
From the BBC page ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11483638 ): “Students doing three-year courses charged at £6,000 will leave university with about £30,000 of debt – if courses go up to £9,000, debts will be closer to £38,000.”
Why did you cherry-pick the 30k figure? Is it because you are presenting a reasoned argument or is it because you found it convenient to support your prejudice?
“and on the BBC webite, the estiamte is that unless you will be earning over 50k average lifetime salary, your total repayment will be about 13% more than under the current system”
That is simply not true (look at the graph). How on earth did you arrive at that figure – are you comparing the same size loan under both systems? Talk about being misleading with facts and figures!
If you care to look at the graph on the BBC website in detail then you will realise that the blue line rises faster than the the repayments for the top four income deciles. This means that the proposals are REGRESSIVE for high income earners (the revisions have made almost no difference). The Lib Dems have been campaigning for higher education to be funded by progressive taxation for the last decade. These proposals are the complete opposite of everything the Lib Dems have stood for and campaigned for for years.
It is irrelevant to voters to compare the current proposals to the previous system. It is relevant to compare the proposals to those they voted for in voting Lib Dem.
However, if you do want to compare the current proposals with the previous system, then it clearly those on middle incomes (the majority of graduates) that really get hit (as a proportion of income – the means by which taxation progression/regression is measured).
@Senseco
I am a Liberal Democrat wholly opposed to tuition fees, I didn’t join the party because of its opposition to tuition fees in particular, I joined the Part because I believed it was truly democratic, with policy decided by the membership not by a central cabal. I copied this sentence from the Party’s website ‘The Liberal Democrats remain the only major British political party founded on the principle that every member has one equal vote in all main party decisions’. Quite clearly Clegg’s cabal have decided that they do not need to consult the membership about this ‘U’ turn on tution fees believing that the special conference gave them the authority to ignore the party’s policy. I voted ‘yes’ at the conference but I did not intend that my vote gave the leadership ‘carte blanche’ to ignore the party’s central principles, clearly i was too trusting.
I believe I need to remain a Liberal Democrat because I believe the Party is essentially fair and principled, it is the leadership that has lost its way. Lord Rennard’scomment ‘ is what has now been negotiated fairer and more progressive than the system Labour left behind?, is in my opinion is entirely wrong, the only question MPs should ask themselves is ‘do I believe that what I am doing is in line with the Party’s policy and is it principled’.
All Lib Dems of goodwill should remain in the party and try to bring it back to the right pat.h. The other two parties offer nothing either in terms of principle or policy.
As for those who have decided not to vote for fair votes because they feel it may favour the Libdems, that is bizarre since FPTP favours the two old parties both of whom favour tuition fees.
“Interesting that David Davis MP says he will vote against the fees rise. A Conservative who hasn’t forgotten his roots on a Council estate.”
David Davis attended the same school as my father, who won an LCC scholarship to Cambridge in 1934 (one of only 50 in the whole country). Without that limited public fudning, my father could not possibly have gone to Cambridge, or any other university. Nor would he have been willing to take on a huge debt burden, in a society where few people had mortgages and borrowing money was considered to be about as wicked and stupid as gambling and getting drunk.
Cameron and Clegg want to return to those days. The Browne proposals are about saving money, yes, but they will also have the effect of ensuring that Oxbridge in future is an exclusively public school preserve (with a few exceptionally bright outsiders allowed through the net). The “lower orders” will have to make do with Thames Valley University and the like. So much for social mobility being the real equality!
pledge n&v
1 a solemn promise or undertaking
2 a thing given as security for the fulfilment of a contract, the payment of a debt etc and liable for forfeiture in the event of a failure
4 a thing put in pawn
5 a thing given as a token of love
Number 2, guys.
Danny Alexander confirmed again. That it is £21k in 2016 money, and not 2012 money.
Therefore it is equivalent of £17.5k in today’s money
So through all the spins, dribble and Guff’s
In exchange for the trebling of Tuition fee’s and paying Interest on your loan at 3% above inflation, in return you will be able to earn 2.5k more in real terms, before making repayments.
Lets all keep pretending this is progressive, And it’s a better deal for students.
What a joke
@roger
“As for those who have decided not to vote for fair votes because they feel it may favour the Libdems, that is bizarre since FPTP favours the two old parties both of whom favour tuition fees.”
It’s not bizarre at all. It is a decision made on the evidence available. That evidence is that Clegg and his fellow ministers have turned their backs upon policy and principle too many times since May to deserve trust. VAT, pace of cuts, Tuition fees and worringly potentially control orders. As far as I see it, AV will decrease Labout support and increase support for the “New Tories” as I believe the coalition has become. You see there are now three old parties, three parties that break promises as soon as they gain power, three parties who cannot be trusted, three parties whose integrity is only evident on the back benches.
The Lib Dem party have until May to prove they deserve the chance to influence the Country more. These is simply no evidence that they can be trusted at present. there are good people int he party and some MP’s with integrity. Prove to the country there really will be no more broken promises and perhaps there is a chance. To my mind the only thing that will convince Clegg to listen is if enough MP’s resign the whip and sit as independants.
My own position, having watched Clegg last night, is that if he, or his clique, lead the Party not only will I not vote for them, I will actively encourage others to take the same stance.
This is a genuine request for information.
Not being a LibDem member I wonder what sanction Clegg actually has against his backbench MPs voting NO in Parliament but obviously following party policy, Manifesto Commitment and possibly personal pledges. I’m not including ministers or PPS MPs.
The obvious thing in my mind is: Can he withdraw the whip?
“My own position, having watched Clegg last night, is that if he, or his clique, lead the Party not only will I not vote for them, I will actively encourage others to take the same stance.”
Indeed. I think “wipe that smirk off Clegg’s face” might be a very effective slogan for the “No” campaign next May.
I’ve voted Liberal or Lib Dem in every election since around 1970, and I finally got round to joining the party at the last election, but I’ve been so angry at the present betrayal, that I’ve spend far more time than I should in the last week commenting on CIF and recommending anti-Lib Dem comments.
Here’s one of the things that I’ve written publicly on the issue, that might help explain why.
MrBojangles007:
I think that part of what is going on is to quote a great article by Oliver Burkeman
People hate, they really really hate, being lied to. And they will do something about it, even to the point of acting somewhat against their own immediate interests. In my case this will consist of voting Labour, for the first time in my life, at the council elections in May. That’s a pledge.
This Youtube clip is relevant.
Roger, the reason i will no longer be supporting AV is simple. When i voted Lib Dem at the last election, i wanted the Lib Dems to have more say in the running of the country and at the time i thought the best way of this happening was a hung parliament which i believed PR could deliver. After seeing what the Lib Dems actually stand for , i no longer want your party anywhere near the corridors of power again hence why i shall no longer be supporting a change to the way we vote in this country. You seem to believe the only thing you’ve done wrong is tuition fees when the fact is people feel betrayed on a whole raft of issues such as , VAT, the immediate cuts, the full privatsiation of Royal Mail, the attacks on the poor, the attacks on social housing to name but a few.
At least with the Tories you know what you’re getting when you vote for them, but the people that voted Lib Dem thought they were voting for something different.
So for me i’ll stick with FPTP and hope this country sees sense and gets rid of the two tory parties we currently have running the country at the earliest opportunity.
Hear Hear
I have been saying for weeks that people should not support AV
AV will deliver more hung parliaments, but it will not make smaller parties more accountable.
Smaller parties (Liberal Democrats) will always use the excuse, we didn’t get enough Mp’s to do this, or we didn’t get enough to do that, They are over eager, to seize power and ministerial cars, but nowhere near as eager to represent the electorate on the basis of which they where elected.
We all understand the difference between a U-Turn and a compromise.
A compromise is {meeting in the middle} A U Turn is abandoning your own party policy in favour of another’s.
If Liberal Democrats are incapable of representing their constituents in Parliament, on the policies for which they are elected, Then they are not worthy of government.
We must keep FPTP and hopefully get rid of this shambolic Coalition Government, and never risk raising the hopes of the electorate again that there are alternatives and that Liberal Democrats were capable of delivering it.
There’s an interesting article by Benedict Brogan in the Telegraph arguing that the debacle over tuition fees has made a Lib-Con pact at the next election more likely:
“At the senior level, Tory members of the Cabinet have concluded that it will be difficult to avoid some kind of election arrangement with the Lib Dems. The only significant minister who seems dead set against it is Liam Fox.
…
In fact, the pain Lib Dem ministers are suffering over tuition fees makes it all but impossible to contemplate Tories campaigning hard against them in a general election. “Are we really going to stand a candidate against Nick Clegg? Or against David Laws?” one senior Tory asks. It is now plain that the first plank of an informal pact is in place. Ministers of either party will be given a clear run at their seats on election day.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100067382/will-david-cameron%E2%80%99s-conservatives-stand-for-a-10-year-coalition/
Perhaps the unanimous backing for the rise in tuition fees from Lib Dem ministers should be seen in that context.
Looks like Simon Hughes is positioning himself to replace Nick by saying he won’t vote for the rise.
And not a moment too soon.
Congratulations to Micheal Chesshum , a student interviewed on the BBC morning news who completely rebutted the tired Clegg/Clegg line that ‘students just don’t understand our plans’. Well if he is anything like representative then students certainly do –
What a wonderful party strategy to completely alienate potential future voters.
I watched a feisty, highly articulate 17-year lady take on the Chief Whip on Channel 4 last night
and felt quite ashamed by the end of it. Oh yes, I think she won.
@Emsworthian
Saw that too – pretty bad that the chief whip gets a comeuppance but hey the girl done good
Bottom of page
http://www.channel4.com/news/ministers-soften-tuition-fee-plans-to-stop-lib-dem-revolt
But look away if you are a Lib Dem MP
Not sure there’s any point at all posting this, as it will probably still be “awaiting moderation” anything up to 10 hours hence, but still.
Here’s William Cullerne Bown’s article about the IFS’s latest analysis of the scheme.
http://exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/exquisite_life/2010/12/new-ifs-analysis-of-government-plans-for-tuition-fees.html
The IFS finds that the proposed scheme is more progressive than the current one (or Browne’s proposals) when analysed in terms of graduate income, but less progressive than the current system when analysed in terms of parental income:
“By decile of parental income, graduates from the poorest 30% of households would pay back less than under Lord Browne’s proposed system, but more than under the current system.”
Of course any talk of a pact allowing ministers to stand without opposition would make the vote for AV even more precarious. If such a pact exists or is even discussed at senior level AV would simply become a stick to beat Labour with at the ballot box…
Please MPs read this. See what you are signing yourself up to.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_gove/article1070161.ece
For the sake of the country, yes, and for our party please do not vote for this.
I was just wondering, all this talk of these proposals being fairer, because Part time Students, will no longer have to pay up front Fee’s.
But my question is, Are Part time students able to get full access to Student Loans and maintenance Loans?
If you make a pledge to the electorate, you keep it. It’s as simple as that.
Everything else is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what Labour did or didn’t do – that’s history. They are no longer in power; you are. Two wrongs do not make a right.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_gove/article1070161.ece
“And if you’re such a fool that you don’t want to accept that deal, then you’re too big a fool to benefit from the university education I’m currently subsidising for you.”
I Cant believe Michael Gove has the audacity to be so damn right Disrespectful.
Either Clegg does not realise the impact today will have or he doesn’t care. Either way that makes him unfit to lead a party that has free university education as a democratically settled policy.
After today the party members and activists have a choice; reclaim the party or become little more then a (slightly) liberal wing of the Tory party. The party that brought you the miners strike and took milk from children, the party of Thatcher and Tebbit.
Even Simon hughes stands to lose his integrity if he continues to waver and err towards abstaining. There is no gray area in this vote, it’s truth or lie.
Don’t forget not all part time students will not have to pay their fees up front. Many people study whilst at work having , say a day off a week to study. These people and anyone else studying for under 25% will still have to pay the fees making it no fairier for a lot of people that are trying to study whilst holding down a full time job.
I agree with Anne at 10.44 but as there are now two Annes’, ( I posted yesterday at 12.43 and on other threads previously) I have changed to ‘Annie’.
i am getting so angry at Clegg and others trying to tell us we do not understand. A university spokesperson on BBC said ‘it is not students who pay the fees it is graduates’. What a stupid statement, does she think we are thick? Do they think if they keep telling us it is ‘fair’ and ‘progressive’ we will just give in and believe them? ‘Fair’ and ‘progressive’ to me are the same as ‘pledge’ all meaningless.
What I meant was, does anyone know what the “earnings” cut off point is, for someone who is working, but studying part time, Eligibility for a Student Loan is?
I can not imagine that everyone would be eligible for student loan, regardless of income.
Tessa Munt Just said in BBC interview that she believes we will have more coalition governments in future,
She said, she believes her party will campaign at the next election again to abolish tuition fee’s,
And yet she maintains, that by Abstaining on the vote in coalition, They are not breaking manifesto and personal pledges, as they are not a majority government.
That just screams that Liberal democrats want the power of government and ministerial car’s, but dont want the accountability that comes with it.
Disgraceful
Nick Clegg has called opponents of the Tuition fee rise ‘dreamers’. Oh if only I could wake up from this nightmare!
“Nick Clegg has called opponents of the Tuition fee rise ‘dreamers’. Oh if only I could wake up from this nightmare!”
He really is quite an astonishing man that Nick Clegg! Every time he opens his mouth he further alienates the very people that voted for him.
‘How could you all be so stupid and naive to want the policies I stood for election on!’
@Annie
“Nick Clegg has called opponents of the Tuition fee rise ‘dreamers’. Oh if only I could wake up from this nightmare!”
The same dreamers who thought they could trust him and his colleagues at the general election. However the dream of MP’s with integrity has turned into an orange nightmare..
@the real problem with your request is that no-one really knows…which is why voting for the fee level this afternoon is just so ridiculous without firm details about many of these issues and in reality is just being done to try and limit the damage being done to the libdem brand – I’m wondering now whether the big vote is actually going to be on the amendment which proposes delay – nightmare for clegg/cable but much easier for any rebels to vote for
@Annie
Please don’t change your name on my account. I don’t intend to post here anymore.
This was just a one off post. I was so frustrated with the current situation, I had to vent.
@Anne
I don’t mind! Just did not want confusion but I think we of the same opinion! i am frustrated with the situation and VERY VERY angry. The Lib Dems could have overturned this vote, at least we know who they are. They will not be able to hide away on this.