Writing on the Guardian’s Comment is Free, Vince Cable takes Labour to task on their developing plan to reduce the tuition fees cap to £6,000. He culminates with this question:
Why is Labour making regressive changes that benefit higher earning graduates before lower earners?
We deliberately set up the loan system so graduates on lower incomes would not have to pay it back in full. We did not want loans to act as a disincentive to study. However, the proposals floated by Labour would do the opposite: those who benefit from cutting fees are richer graduates. In 2010 my colleagues and I devised a policy that protected universities and students, especially the poorest.What Labour is floating sounds like an unworkable policy based on a soundbite, which would leave a costly black hole in university funding. We looked in forensic detail at proposals like Labour’s and found that, in practice, they simply don’t work.
You can read Vince’s article in full here.
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
191 Comments
The actual and better headline is “Tuition-fee cuts: five questions Labour needs to answer”.
It is madness to try to fight Labour on rich bashing considering their manifesto bashes them more than ours. Someone from Head Office needs to intervene.
Plus, the idea that there is much currency in saying a tuition fee cut is actually a tuition fee rise is also unlikely. We should just move on and stop trying to pick a big fight over this.
Regards
No, I think we need to tackle tuition fees head-on, because Labour are squirming. They are getting a big chunk of our former voters on the tuition fees issue – yet now they admit they haven’t a clue how to deal with it themselves.
If it would have been easy-peasy to have kept the level of direct state subsidy of universities as it was prior to 2010, which Labour is claiming, as it is by saying we are bad people for not doing so, then they need to demonstrate that by showing PRECISELY how they would have done it had they been in power, and that also means how they would be doing it if they get back.
If our fight-back on this is to work, we DO need to demonstrate how we would have done it had we been the major governing party. That is, we need to say just what tax rises would have paid for it, and say also that we were in a position where we could not go that way as the Tories would never agree to it (fair enough – their big line is always to keep taxes low, and they “won” the election in first-past-the-post terms). Therefore we had to look round for a compromise position that protected universities in terms of spending and number of places and did not prevent anyone from going to university. We had to swallow hard, accept the tuition fees system – but fight successfully for generous terms and conditions.
It is VERY clear what the Labour alternative to what we did is – MASSIVE cuts to universities. Sure, we could have kept our pledge in words by closing down most of our universities, but is that what we should have done?
I agree with Eddie Sammon, they are not going to win this fight and it just reminds the public about their famous pledge. Everyone who watched the programme knows that the BBC provided figures of what would happen under Milibands policy. The figures showed that 70% of graduates will better off and for the other 30% – the lower paid ones – it will make no difference. Lets not forget that the vast majority of those “higher earning graduates” will not be “city bankers”, but people living on fairly average wages.
I agree with Eddie Sammon.
Tuition fees is a toxic issue for the Lib Dems and the Party should just move on. Yes there is a bit of logic to what Vince Cable is saying, but these hiked up tuition fees are storing up debt problems for the future as less and less graduates earn enough to pay them off which means the government is having to right them off as a loss and when they do earn enough lumbers graduates with a very large debt on top of mortgage or car payments etc. To me they’ve always looked like something that was designed to give the illusion of a budget cut that will ultimately cost tax payers more.
Can we not pay for them like we are now?
The universities are being paid out of borrowing or taxation as there are no receipts coming from the loans yet. The general assumption is that the loans will not cover what is expected so who is going to pay for that down the line?
Would it not be better for the state to borrow the money for HE and reduce the loan to the student to a nominal value. It seems we are just transferring Government debt to personal debt. A proper graduate tax could be introduced – make it applicable to all graduates for a start and also make it fairer than the current loan system where the rich can get a better deal by paying off early. Personally I would fund it from general taxation but I know that will be shouted down
The idea that tuition fees Funded like now are the only option is a bit odd, seeing also that it seems no one really knows how much will be actually paid back.
All the arguments seem to try and pretend no one ends up paying in the end but someone will and I still think just lumping it all onto the student is a flawed strategy. A better mix between loan, government funding and taxation could surely be found that is fit for purpose not just focused on political games regarding tax levels and public spending
stuart moran
Would it not be better for the state to borrow the money for HE and reduce the loan to the student to a nominal value.
Yes, but the Tories would never have agreed to that.
It seems we are just transferring Government debt to personal debt.
Indeed. Maybe not the best way of doing it, but as you now agree it means the Tories agreed to generous state borrowing to allow our universities to carry on without the big cuts in funding that other public services have had. Oh, the state borrowing was individualised, but the agreement that it was available to all and the generous repayment and write-off conditions mean it isn’t much different from a graduate tax.
One advantage to individualising it is that it does act as an incentive to students not to let the money be wasted. As I say to my students when they don’t turn up to labs and lectures “In effect, you’re paying for something then not taking it”.
Matthew
Thanks for the reply
I accept the point you were making about the Tories but it may be different for another Government which makes all these comments about Labour and the gap in funding simplistic. Perhaps Labour are happy to accept more taxpayer contribution which I would prefer.
The point on responsibilisation using tuition fees is also just and it is why I would keep th but at a more standard European level rather than the very high 9000pa
I don’t though fully agree that it is equivalent to a graduate tax. If you want to do that hen it should be done openly and transparently not couched in other terms.
I think tertiary education should be available to all, broadly at taxpayer expense with some contribution at any time of life. I have seen so many people who didn’t take advantage at 18 but who could profitably use it later on
@Eddie Sammon
You’re quite right. It’s not as if any of the other parties were going to mention tuition fees in the election campaign. So keeping completely quiet about the issue, even when our opponents say totally stupid things on the issue, is clearly the best policy.
Simon shaw
What is stupid?
Simon, the best way to criticise Labour on this was on the grounds of cuts to universities, but considering Lib Dems signed a pledge against any increases in fees then I don’t think it is wise to defend £9,000 fees.
I don’t want to say any more on the topic.
Best regards
Simon Shaw
You don’t have to bite every time some one puts some bait down. If tuition fees are brought up by the other parties just apologise and change the subject as quickly as possible. If Nigel Farage was in Clegg’s situation he would simply say we cocked up and leave at that and most people would forget about it. The problem for Nick Clegg is nobody believes he’s sorry, because he always adds things about how fair the current system is to his apology.
@stuart moran
“What is stupid?”
Labour’s proposal to cut the repayment burden on the highest earning graduates, while leaving it unchanged for low and middle earning graduates.
If you don’t think that’s (morally) stupid, perhaps you could explain why.
Simon Shaw
According to the BBC 70% of graduates will be better off under Milibands proposals and the rest will neither gain or lose. The reason the 30% don’t gain anything is because they are the one’s – under the present system – who won’t pay anything back anyway.
@malc
“The problem for Nick Clegg is nobody believes he’s sorry, because he always adds things about how fair the current system is to his apology.”
Has he said it’s fair? What he should say is that it’s fairer than Labour’s system.
As to being sorry, he (correctly) apologised for breaking the pledge. Specifically he said: “We made a pledge, we did not stick to it, and for that I am sorry.”
I don’t see what’s wrong with apologising for that and pointing out that the new system happens to be fairer.
@malc
“According to the BBC 70% of graduates will be better off under Milibands proposals and the rest will neither gain or lose. The reason the 30% don’t gain anything is because they are the one’s – under the present system – who won’t pay anything back anyway.”
Are you sure about that? The only report I could find estimated that approximately the top-earning 60% (not 70%) of graduates would gain,
The lower-earning 40% would gain nothing. Hardly an example of progressive taxation, is it?
As the BBC article I found said: “The general shape of the story is clear. Cutting tuition fees, counter-intuitively, helps better-off graduates the most, and it helps them in the 2030s and 2040s.
That is why spending money on a fee cut is not as simple as it seems. And why targeted measures might be a less complicated way to spend money in higher education, helping part-time and postgraduate students, for example.”
Simon Shaw
It is more complicated than you make it sound. Also we need to await more details. I would like to see the analysis that you refer to and the assumptions within it – this is a political hot potato and the media don’t always play fair do they?
Remind me of the current Lib Dem tuition fees policy. From what I can find it is still removing them!
The BBC is not doing understanding any favours here. If a policy that benefits the top 70% of graduates and is neutral to everyone else is funded out of general taxation, then how much does ‘everyone else’ lose in taxation, and how many of the 70% also lose out on balance?
@Joe Otten
“The BBC is not doing understanding any favours here. If a policy that benefits the top 70% of graduates and is neutral to everyone else is funded out of general taxation, then how much does ‘everyone else’ lose in taxation, and how many of the 70% also lose out on balance?”
I don’t know where the “top 70%” of graduates figure comes from, Joe, but the BBC article I found quoted an estimate of around the highest earning 60% of graduates being the only ones that would gain.
@stuart moran
“It is more complicated than you make it sound.”
Oh, absolutely! That’s where the dishonesty of Labour comes in. They are relying on the complications to make voters think this is a “progressive” policy, whereas it’s the exact opposite, benefiting only high earners.
Joe Otten
Spoken as a true Coalitioner! Are you standing under that banner?
Simon Shaw
Is a piece by the BBC the sum total of ‘evidenc’
@stuart moran
“Is a piece by the BBC the sum total of ‘evidenc’ “
I wouldn’t have thought so.
I only mentioned the BBC because malc claimed that “According to the BBC 70% of graduates will be better off under Milibands proposals and the rest will neither gain or lose.” When I attempted to verify that assertion it appears that is NOT what the BBC says.
Simon Shaw
So where do you back up your claim that it is only the wealthiest who gain….I am sure malc will want to provide his evidence
You have continued to repeat it though without giving us a link to where we can read it ourselves
It is obviously only the wealthier students who will gain. The poorest do not pay back their loans at all now and will not pay them back at all in the future. They gain nothing at all from Labour’s policy.
@stuart moran
You’re correct. I’m still waiting for malc to provide his evidence. I suppose it’s possible that teh BBC said two different things in two different articles. Alternative maybe malc just got it wrong.
Personally I thought it was absolutely obvious that it would be the wealthiest (strictly the highest earning) who would be the only ones who would gain. How could it be anything else?
So I wasn’t in the least bit surprised that the BBC article of 22 January said: “The general shape of the story is clear. Cutting tuition fees, counter-intuitively, helps better-off graduates the most, and it helps them in the 2030s and 2040s.”
Given that Labour have revealed hardly any details about their policy, and in fact have stated that such details are still being worked out, I think the two articles on this subject on LDV (and 80% of the comments) can be filed safely in the “speculative rubbish” category.
Unless one of the commenters here has a crystal ball and can tell us exactly what Labour’s policy will be?
For example, @Tony Dawson:
“It is obviously only the wealthier students who will gain. The poorest do not pay back their loans at all now and will not pay them back at all in the future. They gain nothing at all from Labour’s policy.”
You seem to know what Labour’s policy is, though they haven’t announced it. Care to share your inside knowledge with us?
Has it really not occurred to you – or any of the other posters here – that Labour might actually have spotted some of the problems discussed here, and be working on other modifications to the system to counteract them? I’m not saying they have – but until there is confirmation otherwise, it is pretty hasty to assume that they haven’t.
Unless, of course, there is always going to be something inherently fairer about higher fees – which goes beyond counter-intuitive and well into the realms of fantasy.
I think the 60:40, 70:30 split might be a gender thing.
I believe that with fees at £6000, 70% of male graduates would be better off, 50% of female graduates would be better off, and this averages out at 60% (http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30922032)
In which case I’m surprised that Caron has not yet posted an article that reducing tuition fees penalises women! 😉
Labour might be able to build a case that the wealthiest students and graduates can already reduce their costs by avoiding the loan or repaying early, so the 60% represents more the “squeezed middle” than the “fat cats”. But to be honest, I think they might be quite happy for their target audience to witness all the froth of a torrent of outrage from Lib Dems and the right-wing media.
@Paul Walter
I just wanted to add that I appreciate the title you have given this article, “Why is Labour planning changes to tuition fees that benefit higher earning graduates before lower earners?”, which reflects Cable’s 5th point, and is much more accurate than Iain Roberts’ tabloid-style headline in a parallel thread, “Labour’s Tuition Fees policy is a tax cut for the rich, paid for by the poor”.
Simon Shaw
I would rather it was funded through general taxation so the rich would pay more of that, assuming we have a progressive tax system and one where the top rate is kept at an appropriate level and unearned wealth is taxed as much as income
I think the argument that ‘people who do not go to university pay’ is a specious one as that is an acceptance that there is limited equality of opportunity and that should be dealt with. If people choose not to take up free education then that is their choice
If people are upset that they do not feel that they have access to HE then perhaps it will encourage them to vote for parties that try to deal with that inequality rather than just accept it – if these people did vote then perhaps the parties would care more about this subject
I do accept some burden should go on the student but that should be limited around £2000
Just listening to LD’s defending £9k tuition fees after all their promises at that last election reminds me of why I left the party and will never support them again… After I canvassed, and got others to do the same, based this policy I could not look voters in the eye again. To simply say “well we’ve grown up now” is beneath contempt. You’re no different to the Tories and Labour..
In 2013, Dr Mike Clugston, a teacher at Tonbridge School, calculated that 85% of these loans would reach the 30 year cut off with funds outstanding. But is that really what we would want to see happen?
Clugston took for example, someone starting on the then average national wage of £26,600. Assumed earnings growth throughout their career of RPI plus two points and the £21,000 threshold increases in line with inflation, and concluded they would never repay their loan. The £43,515 debt accumulated at university escalates for 27 years – peaking at £78,510 – before falling slightly to £76,800 at the end of Year 30. Someone earning 21k at 2015 wage levels will find their debt escalating to over £100,000. At £35k (2015 wage levels) debt will have diminished to £2,500.
What will the psychological impact be of living for 30 years with unrepayable debt?
As I wrote here some months ago, the class of 2015 and their parents and grandparents have not appreciated the results of compound interest.
@Bill – why would there be any “psychological impact” of living with a debt that everyone knows will be written off after 30 years? Are you seriously suggesting that it would be better for people to pay the same monthly payments under a graduate tax – FOREVER ? That’s nuts.
MBoy
Pretty much as the constant fear mongering by the coalition about national debt and deficit is nuts as well?
@Stuart:
“You seem to know what Labour’s policy is, though they haven’t announced it. Care to share your inside knowledge with us?”
I am trying to work out how you think that ANY policy by ANY Party can improve the lot of those who pay back NOTHING AT ALL under the present system
That doesn’t make any sense. I presume you realise that the national debt doesn’t ever get written off? Were you trying to make a serious point, or just being silly?
@stuart moran
“Pretty much as the constant fear mongering by the coalition about national debt and deficit is nuts as well?”
That’s rather a silly comment. If the National Debt was wiped out after 30 years then nobody would have any concern about it.
Great minds!
Mboy
The psychological impact of debt is well known and is not ‘nuts’ – taxation is different
A large part of the debt will be written off – where do you think the QE money is going to go?
Oh dear Stuart, I don’t think you understand some of the basics of the national debt, or of what QE is! Have you let the institutions that bought our national debt know that it’s going to be written off yet? They will be pretty surprised and very upset, as they don’t think we are like Greece. It will be pretty bad news for a lot of peoples’ pensions you know…
MBoy
Unless the graduate is on a very moderate wage it doesn’t get written off, but is paid off over a long period of time. Do you really think saddling a young person with massive debts before they have even started work is fair? Whatever happened to the LibDem party that used care about the individual?
Simon Shaw
Sorry to take so long getting back to you ref my 70% of students benefit from Labours policy claim. I got my info from watching newsnight last night when I’m sure the figure of 70% was used – 60% gaining the most, 10% gaining a little, with 30% staying the same. Can’t find it on their site so I guess I’ll have to eat some humble pie and admit your 60% will gain and 40% will stay the same is right.
MBoy
You will find I never said ‘all the debt’
I also said that comparing us to Greece and trying to treat Government debt as household debt in a slump was equally ‘nuts’ as you were accusing Bill’s comment of being
I think you will also find around 20-25% of UK debt is held by the Bank of England so essentially the Government to itself and could be allowed to disappear without being repaid. The treasury is even receiving some interest on debt it owes to itself. Only 30% is held overseas
I accept it is not all straightforward and I am clearly not an expert but the comments made by the Coalition on debt have also been fairly ‘nuts’
Obviously it all depends what the baseline debt is taken as being
Oh and to follow on from that
The Coalition made it sound that the world will fall around our ears if the deficit wasn’t paid off in oe Parliament – funnily enough they have rather incompetently and in a disorganised way have actually been closer to the Darling deficit reduction plan than their own and it seems the world is still standing
As I said previously we have Coalitionists who are happy with the 85% Tory policies enacted under the Coalition and seem to have forgotten that there were some policies before that which were far away from what you support now. Are these Coalitionists still Lib Dems or has the Lib Dem Party become the Coalition?
Simon Shaw 3rd Feb ’15 – 3:22pm
@malc
“According to the BBC 70% of graduates will be better off under Milibands proposals and the rest will neither gain or lose. The reason the 30% don’t gain anything is because they are the one’s – under the present system – who won’t pay anything back anyway.”
Are you sure about that? A lot of us are waiting for you to say where you got that from.
As I said before, the only report I could find estimated that approximately the top-earning 60% (not 70%) of graduates would gain from Labour’s proposal.
@malc
Oops! Sorry, have just spotted your response on that point – thanks.
The BBC report I found is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30922032
Simon Shaw
I do not get the point you are making to be honest
The lower 40% will not be paying anything back I presume, so anyone who actually pays something will pay less – is that the case?
Can you also tell me what Labour’s proposal is – as far as I know they have only set out the broadest principles so everything else is an extrapolation – can you also tell me what the Lib Dem policy is on tuition fees?
I believe the current one is still elimination – has that been replaced by the current Coalition policy that you all seem so happy to defend to the nth degree?
At least Matthew Huntbatch says that it is a compromise and should be treated as such – you seem to be really happy with it so would you oppose any attempt to reduce the fees as proposed by Labour ?
I just read that report – I do not see why it is counter-intuitive at all that the people it benefits those who pay things off in the simplistic extrapolation. There could also be an option to increase the minimum, reduce the interest paid etc etc
As I said there is no real detail what Labour will do but cutting the fees will mean some people pay less than now
I await the counter-proposals from the other parties with interest to see what you would want to do differently – Simon what would you like to see – status quo or some other changes that move the burden back away from the individual onto general taxation, or perhaps you want to even make people pay more?
Would you star penalising those who pay off early for a start?
@Malc
“I got my info from watching newsnight last night when I’m sure the figure of 70% was used – 60% gaining the most, 10% gaining a little, with 30% staying the same.”
You are correct, and Simon is wrong. Bizarrely, Simon even provides a link that proves you are right, from which :-
“Dr Conlon estimates that around the top 60% of male graduate earners would roughly pay off a student loan with current tuition fee levels. Though someone at the 60% line would only just finish… If you cut fees to £6,000, that person – and men who earn more than them – are big winners… A fee cut is also good for people who would not repay in full with fees at £9,000, but would if fees were at £6,000. Dr Conlon estimates that this group is men who are not in the top 60%, but are in the top 70%. It helps them, too – but by less.“
Stuart moran: re “anyone who actually pays something will pay less – is that the case?”
That is highly unlikely. I doubt Labour or anyone would try to further reduce the proportion of fees that are eventually paid for. Unless there is a specific proposal to reduce the payments per month, you can safely assume that the extra take via HMRC will stay the same. The difference is that more would pay in full and richer graduates would pay the full amount earlier.
So far as I can see the tuition fees scheme was devised to be the nearest approximation to a graduate tax (which was deemed unworkable) and seems to me to be a result of ‘too clever by half’, an aim to do whatever it takes not to bring about tax rises and a wish to decouple the dependency of universities on central state funding; I do wonder that if the UK was more devolved, with more autonomous regions, as in Germany that higher education would be arranged very differently.
Martin
I agree with the ‘too clever by half’ comment – it does seem to me that something similar could be made to work
I personally think, as you probably know from previous posts, I am not so sure we have the balance between loan and taxation right at all
@stuart moran
“I do not get the point you are making to be honest
The lower 40% will not be paying anything back I presume, so anyone who actually pays something will pay less – is that the case?”
No, that’s incorrect. Most of the (lowest-earning) 40% will pay something back. It’s just that it is estimated that they will have paid back less than 2/3 of total debt by the time comes to write off anything still unpaid.
So, if you reduce the fees and, therefore, the loan oustanding on graduation by a third (i.e. maximum fees down from £9000 to £6000) then there will be absolutely no saving to those who, under current arrangements, would have paid back less than 2/3 of total debt by the end. The academic consulted by the BBC estimates that number as being 40% of the total.
To me that’s all instinctively obvious.
“Can you also tell me what Labour’s proposal is – as far as I know they have only set out the broadest principles so everything else is an extrapolation – can you also tell me what the Lib Dem policy is on tuition fees?”
No and no. All I can say is that the scrutiny that Labour are receiving on this issue is a lot “fairer” than (say) the accusation by Labour that the Conservatives “want to privatise the NHS.” I am quite sure you are vociferous in your complaints about Labour on that, aren’t you?
“At least Matthew Huntbatch says that it is a compromise and should be treated as such – you seem to be really happy with it so would you oppose any attempt to reduce the fees as proposed by Labour ?”
I would oppose any move by Labour to cut the fees to the benefit ONLY of the highest earning graduates. Frankly such a move would be a hypocritical disgrace on the part of the Labour. A classic example of them trying to win the votes of “Champagne Socialists”, using ordinary taxpayer’s money. I’m amazed you appear to support it.
@Stuart
I think that quote is from the article I linked to above (https://www.libdemvoice.org/liblink-vince-cable-why-is-labour-planning-changes-to-tuition-fees-that-benefit-higher-earning-graduates-before-lower-earners-44505.html#comment-336739) and the key word is “men”.
However, I suspect that the precise figure is pretty hard to pin down and Newsnight may well have reported a higher calculated proportion. It is also all based on the assumption that everything apart from the cap (which “coincidentally” looks to be set at the same £6000 level that Lib Dems thought would be the norm anyway) remains the same. But Labour don’t appear to have yet said anything about the rest of their policy (later this month, apparently) so all this simply serves to remind voters of Lib Dems’ tortuous positions on the issue. Only the Tories seem to come out of this without egg on their faces.
One thing that strikes me about some of this debate is the contrast with the much-trumpeted policy of giving free school meals to the children of parents who can afford to pay for them.
@Simon
“there will be absolutely no saving to those who, under current arrangements, would have paid back less than 2/3 of total debt by the end. The academic consulted by the BBC estimates that number as being 40% of the total.”
No he doesn’t. Read the article you yourself linked to. He states that 70% would pay less if fees were cut by a third. 100 – 70 = 30 the last time I checked.
@Stuart
“You are correct, and Simon is wrong. Bizarrely, Simon even provides a link that proves you are right, from which :-
“Dr Conlon estimates that around the top 60% of male graduate earners would roughly pay off a student loan with current tuition fee levels. Though someone at the 60% line would only just finish… If you cut fees to £6,000, that person – and men who earn more than them – are big winners… A fee cut is also good for people who would not repay in full with fees at £9,000, but would if fees were at £6,000. Dr Conlon estimates that this group is men who are not in the top 60%, but are in the top 70%. It helps them, too – but by less.“ “
No, I am right and you are wrong. You are simply ignoring women! Any particular reason?
What the Conlon research says is that the highest earning 70% of men would gain. He also says that for women, it’s lower: the highest earning 50% of women would gain.
As there are currently more female than male university students, that means that just under 60% of all students would gain. Just over 40% – the lowest earning 40% or so – wouldn’t gain anything.
Labour’s bribe to the rich!
@Stuart
“Simon: ‘there will be absolutely no saving to those who, under current arrangements, would have paid back less than 2/3 of total debt by the end. The academic consulted by the BBC estimates that number as being 40% of the total.’
No he doesn’t. Read the article you yourself linked to. He states that 70% would pay less if fees were cut by a third. 100 – 70 = 30 the last time I checked.”
Do I assume that you now accept that you are wrong?
Or do women students really not count?
@Simon
“You are simply ignoring women! Any particular reason?”
I must have spent too much time hanging around in Lib Dem circles.
“Do I assume that you now accept that you are wrong?”
Put it this way – I’m exactly as wrong as you were about £9,000 fees not being “exceptional”, and very happy to admit it. You should try it some time, it’s quite cathartic.
@Simon
“I would oppose any move by Labour to cut the fees to the benefit ONLY of the highest earning graduates.”
Do you feel the same way about the increases in the income tax allowance, which of course do not benefit the lowest paid workers? Or is that somehow more palatable to you?
It’s clear from Douglas Alexander’s comments that Labour’s plans are going to be wide-ranging and long-term. But even if Labour were only to cut fees and do nothing else, of course this would benefit all prospective students, because it would remove a disincentive for them to earn more money and reduce their fear of having a huge debt round their necks. You may think these effects do not amount to much, but speaking as someone who works with young people of university-applying age every day and talks to them about these issues, I assure you that it’s important – and it matters a lot more to kids from modest backgrounds than the “champagne socialists” you talk about.
The Lib Dems’ approach is “don’t worry about massive debts, kids – all you have to do is settle for low pay for 30 years and you won’t even have to pay it”. What a dismal vision to try to sell to young people. Good luck with that, Simon.
@Stuart
“But even if Labour were only to cut fees and do nothing else, of course this would benefit all prospective students, because it would remove a disincentive for them to earn more money and reduce their fear of having a huge debt round their necks.”
That’s an interesting argument. Are you saying that you support a cut in the top rate of income tax from 45% to (say) 40% on the basi that it would remove a disincentive for people to earn more money.
I think it’s rather surprising that you to use a Conservative argument to defend a Labour policy. Although. as you are defending a Labour policy which benefits the well-off, maybe not so surprising after all.
@Stuart
“The Lib Dems’ approach is “don’t worry about massive debts, kids – all you have to do is settle for low pay for 30 years and you won’t even have to pay it”.
But the previous Labour system was that you had to repay EVEN THOUGH you were on low pay.
Do you really think the last Labour system was better/fairer than the new one? You can’t honestly suggest that, surely?
How come Vince didn’t say all this stuff about £9,000 fees being essential before the last election?
Simon Shaw.
Yeas the last Labour system was better than the new one. It wasn’t great. But the total level of debt was a lot less. The fact of the matter is the Lib Dems pledged not to raise tuition fees and the majority of Lib Dem MPs voted to triple them. They could have abstained from the vote or voted against it and the choice to vote for it. It caused huge protest. the party of millions of votes. The fact some people will spend 3 years in university studying to improve themselves and to improve their job prospects, but in thirty years of employment but never earning enough to even begin paying it off is nothing to applaud. Ask your self this. Would you rather have a debt of about £10,000 which you can pay off or have a debt taken on as a gormless young spud at the age 18 years old balloon to nearly £100, 000 before it is finally written off when you are nearly 50 years old probably having never earned enough to own a home.
It’s ridiculous to pretend that this is anything other than storing up problems for the current generation of youngsters and future governments when they have to pick up the tab. Especially when more and more young people are being shoehorned into HE because youth unemployment has stayed stubbornly high and the only jobs being created are zero hour contracts, low pay or based on pretending that the flat lining wages of Osborn’s “self-employed” are a miracle of economic sense. As a parent of youngster hoping to go to university at some point I am absolutely appalled by this fiasco and the attempts to gloss over its effects on my child’s future prospects. And every time it is mentioned another reason for voting Lib Dem gets chipped away. .
So Simon you do not know what Labour’s plans are and are extrapolating based on your own prejudices
I also find it telling you then use an example of where Labour are apparently being unfair to the Tories – why use the Tories as an example?….I would say that it is not either the Lib Dems or Labour who are directing the media to make spurious and sensationalist attacks on opponents at the moment!
My partner works in the NHS by the way and does think the Tories are making way for massive privatisation – what is your role within the NHS Simon seeing you are so keen to defend the Tories you will be able to tell us
A true Coalitionist!
Oh an no I didn’t like Labour’s tuition fees policy – I remember an alternative being offered up by the party I voted for all my life and so continued to vte for them!
Instead of wittering on about Labour’s policy – which you don’t know in any detail and are just guessing – can you tell me what the Lib Dem one is? Still no tuition fees, or is it something else?
Simple question which I will repeat:
What is the Liberal Democrat policy on tuition fees and HE funding?
@Tsar Nicolas
“How come Vince didn’t say all this stuff about £9,000 fees being essential before the last election?”
Maybe because the Browne Review didn’t report until October 2010?
That’s the Browne Review which was set up by the last Labour government in 2009. Didn’t you know that?
@Glenn
“Yeas the last Labour system was better than the new one. It wasn’t great. But the total level of debt was a lot less.”
When I asked whether someone thought the last Labour system was better/fairer than the new one, it didn’t mean better for high earners. I thought the word “fairer” would have made that clear.
If the Labour system was so good why do you think the last Labour government commissioned Lord Browne of Madingley to conduct his review? Just for the fun of it?
Simon Shaw
What is the Lib Dem policy?
as to you answer about Cable. Don’t you think that was a bit feeble? I don’t remember any Lib Dems talking about there being a need for tuition fees, only a pledge to vote against any rise
I don’t remember anyone in the party leadership talking about waiting for the Browne review that was the Labour and Tory approach!
Is there any Coalition policy you disagree with?
@stuart moran
“So Simon you do not know what Labour’s plans are and are extrapolating based on your own prejudices”
I can only go on what I read in the press, for example the New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/if-labour-cuts-tuition-fees-it-wont-help-more-disadvantaged-students-go-university
This is what the New Statesman has to say:
“If Labour cuts tuition fees, it won’t help more disadvantaged students go to university”
“as I explained last week, a cut in tuition fees would increase income inequality.”
“It would reduce the tax burden of the richest graduates while doing nothing to help less well-off graduates or, even more importantly, lower socioeconomic groups when they are studying at university.”
“Damningly, Labour’s apparent new policy on tuition fees doesn’t even engage with the question of how to get more disadvantaged pupils into top universities. Partly this reflects the surprising success of the trebling of tuition fees. Apocalyptic fears that a generation of students would be put off university have not materialised: there are more disadvantaged pupils at university than ever before.”
I also find it telling you then use an example of where Labour are apparently being unfair to the Tories – why use the Tories as an example?
“apparently being unfair to the Conservatives” – I think your true colours are starting to show.
I’ll tell you what. You find me an example of Labour being unfair to Labour and I’ll use that instead.
@stuart moran
Simple question which I will repeat:
What is the Liberal Democrat policy on tuition fees and HE funding?
Didn’t you read my answer at 9.59pm last night?
Simon
You do know that NS editor Jason Cowley is no friend of the current Labour leadership don’t you? He is one of the Blairite coterie in the media who still over estimate their importance
A magazine article is now policy is it? Before launching your invective and extrapolating shouldn’t you wait for the policy?
As Lib Dem policy, as far as I can see is still no tuition fees’ perhaps you will tell us more about how that is being funded or if it has changed what it is?
As to my true colors. I am vehemently anti Tory. They have done very much damage to the fabric of my country and I am convinced they are looking to sell off a lot to the private sector in all areas. Where is it their funding comes from? Why does it offend you that I am so anti Tory? I know you are anti Labour in the same way.
I am happy to see that your views are the same the Blairites espouse, as well as the Tories and all the other Coaltionists. Makes me think Miliband is doing something right if you and Dan Hodges are opposed!
So Simon no policy from the Lib Dems then. I missed that response because you just dismissed it as thought it doesn’t matter.
One thing I noticed is that you are very happy to criticise a Labour policy based on a magazine article but nowhere do you actually say what you believe in or would like to see. If you read my posts you will see that most are about no party policy but the principles of how HE could be funded. Matthew Huntbatch engages in this subject very well.
Perhaps you could tell us what you would like it to be? The current system or any alterations? What is your own personal view?
@stuart moran
You do know that NS editor Jason Cowley is no friend of the current Labour leadership don’t you?”
No, I didn’t. Why would you think I would be the least bit interested in Labour in-fighting in the media?
If you don’t like the New Statesman, then why don’t you read the reports in other parts of the media, including the BBC? Or is your political paranoia such that you think the BBC constitutes an anti-Labour conspiracy?
How about Martin Lewis, an acknowledged independent expert in this field, who also has some very clear views on Labour’s proposals:
“Labour’s plan to cut tuition fees to £6,000 is a financially illiterate policy”
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2015/02/02/labours-plan-to-cut-tuition-fees-to-6000-is-a-financially-illiterate-policy/
@stuart moran
So Simon no policy from the Lib Dems then. I missed that response because you just dismissed it as thought it doesn’t matter.”
I’m sure that the 2015 Lib Dem Manifesto will address the issue, but as you asked me “ can you also tell me what the Lib Dem policy is on tuition fees?”, my honest answer is “No, I can’t.”
Simon
I will say this once more:
These people who are commentating do not know what the policy is! I don’t care what they think it is we will have to wait until it is released
Who you and I judge to be knowledgeable and respected in the media world is very subjective. All I know is that people you, Cowley and Dan Hodges being against something makes me inclined to be supportive because my past experience tells me we do not share the same values
Why don’t you actually tell me what YOU believe in….don’t hide behind the party. It is clear toe that you did not support your own party’s official policy in 2010 so tell me what you want to see happen?
@stuart moran
I will say this once more: These people who are commentating do not know what the policy is! I don’t care what they think it is we will have to wait until it is released
Are you saying that Ed Miliband has no idea what he is talking about?
Here’s a Guardian headline for you: “Labour would cut top university fees to £6,000, says Ed Miliband”
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/sep/24/labour-tuition-fees-cut-miliband
Did you write in to the Guardian to complain, on the basis that they shouldn’t say that but “wait until it is released”?
That headline is from over three years ago. And you are saying that Labour STILL haven’t got their policy straight? There are only two possibilities I can think of: either Labour are dishonest or Labour are incompetent. Maybe a mixture of both.
No wonder Labour look to be heading for election defeat. And all you want to do is defend them from the nasty Lib Dems who are being rude enough to point out the gaping holes in their policy.
I hesitate to intrude into private grief, but the majority of LibDem MPs did not vote to increase tuition fees. More abstained or voted against than voted for.
The problem is that for years successive governments have increased student numbers but without a corresponding increase in funding. It’s similar to the retiral age being kept at 60/65 for decades despite life expectancy increasing significantly. In both cases, the skies have been darkened by chickens coming home to roost and governments eventually having to play catch-up.
Simon
The policy is not defined in detail so you exploit the unknown to extrapolate to fit your bias. The points you make may well be addressed in the final policy. Your efforts are really very poor
As to criticizing their lack of policy – can you let me know where YOUR party is with theirs? Surely it is well defined and communicated? No? So what a shambles you must be!
I am not going to predict the next election but you seem to be happy at the prospect of a future Tory government – Labour are losing out for being too right wing not too left wing!
Again though I am not defending or hiding behind a party policy ( that you clearly did not support in 2010) tell us what YOU think
@stuart moran
“The policy is not defined in detail so you exploit the unknown to extrapolate to fit your bias.”
No I don’t. I make comments based upon what Labour have said.
But if you really think the Labour policy “is not defined in detail”, and bearing in mind that Ed Miliband deliberately sought those newspaper headlines MORE THAN THREE YEARS AGO, could you tell me whether you agree with me that:
There are only two possibilities I can think of: either Labour are dishonest or Labour are incompetent. Maybe a mixture of both.
Simon and Stuart, I think you may have just blown your chances of being able to comment in any ‘infrequent contributers’ threads for the foreseeable future 🙂
Simon Shaw
“Maybe because the Browne Review didn’t report until October 2010?
That’s the Browne Review which was set up by the last Labour government in 2009. Didn’t you know that?”
Your attempt to rewrite history won’t work. The Coalition agreement was reached in May, which last time I checked, came five months ahead of October.
Stephen
Lol. Yes it is true isn’t it
It is frustrating though because Simon keeps wittering on about Labour and a non- finalized policy ( for which there are two threads)
To be honest I am not that interested in the Labour policy until it is defined properly
What I want Simon to do is talk about what he thinks a Lib Dem policy should look like!
I feel it is a wasted effort though as he has nothing interesting to say. A true Coalitionist ( 85% Tory with a bit of LD)
stuart moran (in reply to me)
I accept the point you were making about the Tories but it may be different for another Government which makes all these comments about Labour and the gap in funding simplistic. Perhaps Labour are happy to accept more taxpayer contribution which I would prefer.
It’s not a matter of “accepting more taxpayer contribution”, as if taxpayers are queueing up to donate voluntarily. It’s a matter of increasing taxes to do this. This is the nub of the issue – the Liberal Democrats have been condemned again and again over tuition fees, by Labour and with Labour the main beneficiaries of the loss of Liberal Democrat support, yet this condemnation has taken the approach that tuition fees are an isolated issue and their raising or scrapping has no other implications. Of course this is nonsense, that’s what I am saying. Labour should not benefit from loss of Liberal Democrat support over the tuition fees issue unless they are prepared to show that something different was possible, and they need to show clearly what that something different is, and it must involve higher taxation, so they have a duty to say what that higher taxation would be. But they have not done that. Not at all. Not one little bit. That is why, as someone who works at a university and has had my job threatened in the past, I am scared stiff at the prospects of a Labour government reducing tuition fees to £6,000 and doing nothing else. It’s very likely to mean I lose my job because of the consequent cuts in university spending.
The point on responsibilisation using tuition fees is also just and it is why I would keep th but at a more standard European level rather than the very high 9000pa
Yes, so would I. It’s a position I keep making again and again – if we want the level of state support for health services and education that people say they want, them we need the level of taxation that will pay for it. The response to this is always that what I am asking for is unrealistic, that people would never vote for a party which openly says it is for higher taxation. Very well, if that’s the case, then I think people need to be told the consequences – it will mean services that have been funded by taxation in the past are no longer funded that way. This time it was university education. What will it be next time? The NHS cannot go along as it is, so if people won’t vote for a party which says it will increase tax, they must accept that next time it will be payment for some aspects of NHS services – a bill to attend your GP perhaps.
I don’t though fully agree that it is equivalent to a graduate tax. If you want to do that hen it should be done openly and transparently not couched in other terms
I am not saying it is equivalent to graduate tax. I am saying it is closer to that than it might have seemed at first. The Liberal Democrats have been condemned as bad people for accepting tuition fees, yet the point is what of accepting them and pushing the loans and write-off conditions as far as possible to make it like a graduate tax was the most palatable alternative the Tories would offer? Are the Liberal Democrats bad people for accepting that, rather than, say, sticking to their “pledge” at the expense of massive cuts to the number of university places, and more cuts in other things as well to pay for what’s left of them?
@Tsar Nicolas
“Simon Shaw – “Maybe because the Browne Review didn’t report until October 2010?
That’s the Browne Review which was set up by the last Labour government in 2009. Didn’t you know that?”
Your attempt to rewrite history won’t work. The Coalition agreement was reached in May, which last time I checked, came five months ahead of October. “
I think you are the one that is trying to rewrite history.
You asked: “How come Vince didn’t say all this stuff about £9,000 fees being essential before the last election?”
The answer, as I told you, is that the Browne £9,000 fee proposal came out in October 2010. The Coalition Agreement of May 2010 had no mention of £9,000 fees.
You asked why Vince didn’t talk in April 2010 about something that was 7 months in the future. Even Vince has limits to his powers of prediction!
Simon
Be real he didn’t talk about any tuition fees because your party policy was £0!!!! In fact your MPs pledged to vote to keep it at 0. It was Labour and the Tories who used Browne as an excuse!
I think Tsar Nicholas was bringing this point to your attention
Matthew
On your first point I understand where you are coming from entirely – the funding for HE has to be assured and if tuition fees are reduced then the burden should fall on taxation – that is the choice to make and Labour need to set this out.
This is why I reserve judgement on any Labour policy as it needs to be looked at in totality rather than a simplitic ‘fees cut’.
This position also links niocely to the second part of your comment in that we cannot have services for free – they have to be paid for. In my ‘socialist’ view I would like general taxation to manage this but also I think a tempering with a certain responsibility of the general public – such as a contribution to tuition fees rather than zero rated and a charge for missed appointments etc.
I am also interested to know if our HE is inherently more expensive than those abroad….why can the rest of Europe get away with smaller fees (I can’t remeber if Browne addresses this point) – is it purely down to state contribution or is there a difference in participation rates? I still think we have got HE policy wrong but can’t put my finger on what it is!
I do not oppose all private sector involvement in delivery but there have to be some ground rules
No cherry picking
No profiteering
No private monopoly creation
Transparence of who these companies are lobbying and who they donate to
Under new labour and the Tories these rules are broken and private sector mean profiteering at the expense of the tax payers!
On the graduate tax – it is one option and I accept the point you make. The problem I have with this, like it was with the botcherd economic management, that pretending to do one thing but actually doing another means it is not done openly and is, in my view for both cases, done badly and inefficiently
A full-blown graduate tax would have been differently put togeth, and also opens the possibility of taxing us graduates who benefited from free education, and in some cases, maintenance grants. I am only in my mid 40s so could contribute for another 20 years – is that fair – probably, and seeing we are all in it together!!!
Simon Shaw
After your first 26 comments in this thread have you considered revisiting that old expression about holes and why if you are in one a long term excavation plan is not the best policy ?
@JohnTilley
Why should we stop? It’s quite clear to me from the postings of those who seek to defend Labour that they recognise that Labour have got themselves into a serious hole on this.
In those circumstances, why should I or any Lib Dem want to stop kicking Labour when they’re down?
I don’t think that even you have felt able to defend Labour on this.
Simon Shaw
Are you referring to me as most of your responses have been to me
I am not defending Labour at all; all I have done is said you seem to be ranting against a policy that has not yet been described in enough detail to see whether it is good or not. Reducing tuition fees is good in my view but how that funding is replaced is still not explained. I am prepared to reserve judgement until then
One thing you have not done though is express your own opinion of what ‘good’ would look like. Are you waiting to be told by that expenses cheat Laws? What is YOUR view?
I have the advantage of not being a member of any party so can see good and bad in all – with the Tories I see previous little good though to be honest!
Simon Shaw,
It’s nothing to do with defending labour. I don’t think Labour have got themselves into a hole here. I thinink the Lib Dems just keep digging a deeper one everytime tuition fees raises its head. My othe problem is this as broadly what gets called a social liberal. I do not see how constantly bashing fellow travellers like labour or the SNP helps the cause of social progression. Is this sustained bout adversarial short sightedness attracting new voters or making that many existing ones more loyal. To me at least, I look at it and think. how am I going to get tuition fees lower and get rid of the Bedroom Tax or stop IDS, Gideon and the rest doing more damage. Do I continue to vote Lib Dem and be told that things I do not approve of or support are actually pretty awesome or do I put my vote elsewhere. This party has been reduced to 7% in England and 3-4% in Scotland and as far as I can tell everytime it tries to defend mostly Tory lead policies decisions by attacking the views of its present and former voters it loses more votes. I do not want to vote Labour, but quite frankly at the moment it looks a better option than putting my values in competition with part loyalty so that Conservatives can form a Government with UKIP. Let it sink in. There is going to be no second term. It’s the wrong strategy. Labours losses do not benefit the Lib Dems or liberalism. Show me were these votes are flooding back and I will reconsider.
As a former LD supporter/member for many years I would like to point out the following.
Quote from Labour 1997 manifesto
“Higher education
The improvement and expansion needed cannot be funded out of general taxation. Our proposals for funding have been made to the Dearing Committee, in line with successful policies abroad.” Labour won with a landslide.
Quote from Labour manifesto 2005
“The maximum annual fee paid by students will not rise above £3,000 (uprated annually for inflation) during the next Parliament.”
No pledges for zero tuition fees, no signed pledges, no “no more broken promises”, no hawking round university campus after university campus pledging to students to abolish tuition fees, no encouraging students to canvas on their behalf.
LD 2010 manifesto.
“Scrap unfair university tuition fees for all students taking their first degree, including those studying part-time, saving them over £10,000 each. We have a financially responsible plan to phase fees out over six years, so that the change is affordable even in these difficult economic times, and without cutting university income. We will immediately scrap fees for final year students.”
The rest is history and this is why i’ll never support them again.
@Simon Shaw
“But if you really think the Labour policy “is not defined in detail”, and bearing in mind that Ed Miliband deliberately sought those newspaper headlines MORE THAN THREE YEARS AGO, could you tell me whether you agree with me that:
There are only two possibilities I can think of: either Labour are dishonest or Labour are incompetent.”
Simon – you are completely missing the point. Nobody questions that Labour are planning to cut tuition fees to £6,000 from the Lib Dems’ £9,000. Take that as a given if you wish. The point is that neither you nor any of the other people who are getting apopleptic about it (including Martin Lewis) know what the other details of Labour’s policy will be. I’m referring to such not-trifling matters as payment thresholds, interest rates, variable repayment rates for high earners, extra relief for low earners, etc etc etc.
The fact that you can condemn Labour’s still-unfinalised policy so strongly without knowing all these not-so-minor details indicates that you think ANY £6,000 fee, however administered, is going to be inherently worse and less fair than any £9,000 fee.
Is that really your position? If not, what is? The other Stuart has asked you what your own position is but you seem oddly reluctant to give an answer. Why contribute about forty posts on a subject you aren’t willing to express an opinion about?
@Simon
“That’s an interesting argument. Are you saying that you support a cut in the top rate of income tax from 45% to (say) 40% on the basi that it would remove a disincentive for people to earn more money.”
There’s a world of a difference between a 9% tax rate levied on income over £21,000, in service of a huge and escalating debt, and a 5% tax rate levied on income over £160,000. The differences are so obvious I’m sure you can recognise them.
Perhaps you’d care to answer my question about Lib Dem income tax allowance policy. Given all you have said here, how can you possibly support a flagship tax policy that gives no benefit to the lowest paid?
@Simon Shaw
“Do you really think the last Labour system was better/fairer than the new one?”
That’s like asking me if I prefer Islamic State to Boko Haram. I don’t suffer from the same mind-numbing tribalism that afflicts you, therefore I’ve never pretended that the Labour system is anything other than rotten. I’ve made clear what my own views are and they are very distant from the previous government’s. The current scheme is marginally better in one respect only (the slightly higher threshold) while being vastly worse in every other respect (higher debts, higher interest rates, much longer repayment periods, too much freedom for the government to change the terms of the loans…)
What about you, Simon – do you think there are any features of the current system that are inferior to the old one?
In fact, do you actually have any opinions about student finance at all?
@Glenn
I do not want to vote Labour, but quite frankly at the moment it looks a better option”
I don’t understand why. If you look upon people like Labour or the SNP as “fellow travellers” (in the sense of largely agreeing with them), why wouldn’t you simply vote for them?
It may be you live in a constituency where Labour have no chance, in which case a vote for Lib Dems might well prevent a Conservative being elected.
I don’t regard Labour or the SNP as fellow travellers. They are just as much the political enemy as the Conservatives.
@Stuart
“The fact that you can condemn Labour’s still-unfinalised policy so strongly without knowing all these not-so-minor details indicates that you think ANY £6,000 fee, however administered, is going to be inherently worse and less fair than any £9,000 fee.”
You seem to miss the point that one of the main reasons why I condemn it is that is is “still-unfinished”. Ed Miliband announced it MORE THAN THREE YEARS AGO, and there is still (allegedly) no detail. Personally I regard that as a cynical disgrace. Why don’t you?
@Stuart
Agree with everything you say.
Those who live within the LD bubble can not and will not see the injustice of £9k fees after their pre election promises. Everyone else can.
@Thomas
“Those who live within the LD bubble can not and will not see the injustice of £9k fees after their pre election promises. Everyone else can.”
From your previous post I doubt whether you are open to logical argument. But please don’t think you speak for “everyone else”. Some people think that £9,000 fees are an “injustice”; there are many who don’t.
Simon Shaw
How do you know it is unfinished…they just haven’t put you on the top of their list for being informed! And no it is not a cynical disgrace….and I think it is a little bit rich anyone who supported the bedroom tax and other Coalition policies calling someone else a disgrace for something as trivial as not telling you what there policy is pre-manifesto!
You do understand why political parties keep their policies under wraps don’t you? Especially oppositions…..the fact is the opposition cannot enact anything but the Government can pinch any good ideas and pretend they thought of them…this has gone on for time immemorial
Why is it not a disgrace that we are still waiting for a Lib Dem policy on HE funding….funnily enough I would not criticise them too much but what is good fro the goose….
Anyway, coming back for the umpteenth time to the same question
What would you like to see as a policy? Do you have any views on this or do you just wait to be told what to think?
I have made my comments on this….and as you will see they are not reflected in any party’s policy including Labour who continually disappoint
Simon Shaw
30 comments in one thread.
Are you doing this for a bet ?
Or the Guinness Book of Broken Records ?
John Tilley
I have no problems with a lot of posts….it is just I am no more the wiser on what he actually thinks on the subject apart from Labour are crap! (and to be honest he doesn’t need to say that as it is the same opinion of all their policies)
I feel a bit like Paxman interviewing Howard!
I am a very simple person and I simply do not understand this: if HE has to be funded by something other than general taxation, then how is it being funded at the moment, when these new graduates will not pay anything back until they earn over 21k – ie at least three years away, and more like five or six years hence??
And who do you think Howard cites as his hero and mentor?
Sorry Simon 🙂
Ooooofffff Simon Shaw. Touchy aren’t we with anyone who is stupid enough to believe manifesto promises.
“Some people think that £9,000 fees are an “injustice”; there are many who don’t.”
Perhaps someone from the Lib Dems can come into the school I work in and explain the system to some of the poorest students in the country who won’t attend due to the fees. Oh we had someone in from JMU and I quote “don’t worry you don’t have to pay them back”… These same kids canvassed for the LDs at the last election based on this policy. No, I’m sorry I will never believe the LDs again. Give me one reason why I should.
And believe me Simon as a former LD member and supporter….outside the Lib Dem bubble most people think the new system in unfair.
My daughter is about to attend University and if she’s lucky will end up with £45k debt before she has started to and Clegg has the nerve to criticise the debt crisis left by labour.
@stuart moran
“How do you know it is unfinished…they just haven’t put you on the top of their list for being informed!”
That’s what Stuart said, not me. Do keep up!
“And no it is not a cynical disgrace”
Yes it is, and I reckon you know it is too. What’s a cynical disgrace is announcing a policy that you know will fall apart on closer examination, so you avoid giving fuller details for more than three years so that you can (hopefully) avoid such examination.
Labour’s problem is that isn’t working any more – the Vice-Chancellors’ letter to the Times being just one example of how the policy is falling apart.
“You do understand why political parties keep their policies under wraps don’t you?”
But they didn’t keep it under wraps, did they? Labour’s Leader announced it more than three years ago. He assumed that there are lots of people like you who want to help him paper over the cracks. Your problem is that the cracks are too big.
@Thomas
“And believe me Simon as a former LD member and supporter….outside the Lib Dem bubble most people think the new system in unfair.”
And your evidence is? I think your problem is that you are thinking of your own bubble and extrapolating from there.
If “most” people think it’s unfair, isn’t it a little surprising that none of the main political parties is proposing to change it in a way that you would call “fair”.
My daughter is about to attend University and if she’s lucky will end up with £45k debt before she has started to and Clegg has the nerve to criticise the debt crisis left by labour.
stuart moran 4th Feb ’15 – 9:58pm
stuart ,
there are two other Simons who regularly post comments in LDV and I think Simon Shaw is the least objectionable and most reasonable of the three.
One seems to be a UKIP supporter whilst the other is a member of the organisation “Liberal Reform”, an oddly named group which seems to be Conservative Free-market Obsessive.
Compared to those two, Simon Shaw is a model of Liberalism and open debate.
John, you are on top form tonight – several LOL moments 🙂
When I think about this latest Labour policy fiasco, it reminds me a bit of a previous one: Their Energy Price Freeze.
I remember pointing out at the time what an awful policy it was, as, in the event of falling world energy prices (which is exactly what has happened), then the last thing we as consumers would want was for domestic energy prices to be frozen.
But others (possibly some of the ones trying to defend Labour here) claimed what a brilliant policy it was that Labour had come up with. Strangely, we hear no more about that particular policy any more.
Over 100 comments on this thread and still lots of passion about the broken pledge. Four years ago plenty of LibDems thought it would soon be forgotten, but it looks like it’s still the no1 major problem for them.
Simon Shaw
The Parties are not most people. Most people are the parents, students and lost voters, And please state what you actually believe is a fair policy rather than just quote lines of post by other people out of context. You’re probably a good bloke but it comes across as an attempt to belittle people into silence.
By the way there’s a lot of parents in a similar position to Thomas who are trying to encourage their children to get an education who are worried about them facing huge debts and the effect this may have on their futures,. Are they all living in a bubble?
No matter what Simon Shaw says, or Eddie Sammon or indeed anyone in the Lib Dem bubble, the general public are not going to forgive us for the whole tuition fee mess – not for a very long time. As far as many are concerned (including large numbers who had previously voted for us) we are a bad smell in their noses.
We were once seen as a party of principle, now we are seen as one who compromises their principles.
John Tilley,
“Simon Shaw
30 comments in one thread.
Are you doing this for a bet ?”
It’s not that, John. He’s discovered that David Allen (Gordon) is leading the field on a parallel thread, with 84,900,000 hits. Whereas Simon Shaw (Gordon) only scored 9,600,000 hits.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/oops-15-ashcroft-scottish-polls-published-early-by-mistake-44529.html#comment-336890
Simon is now well on the way to abolishing the deficit of 74,300,000 hits, by means of what one might call entryism. Well, at any rate, he’s found a more effective way to tackle the deficit than George Osborne…
@malc
“Over 100 comments on this thread and still lots of passion about the broken pledge. Four years ago plenty of LibDems thought it would soon be forgotten, but it looks like it’s still the no1 major problem for them.”
Just for the record I have never met a Lib Dem, now or 4 years ago, who thought “it would soon be forgotten”.
That’s why my first comment on this thread was the sarcastic: “You’re quite right. It’s not as if any of the other parties were going to mention tuition fees in the election campaign. So keeping completely quiet about the issue, even when our opponents say totally stupid things on the issue, is clearly the best policy.”
I do think that Labour’s policy fiasco in this area means that it will be slightly less “the no1 major problem for us” than it might have been.
@Glenn
“By the way there’s a lot of parents in a similar position to Thomas who are trying to encourage their children to get an education who are worried about them facing huge debts and the effect this may have on their futures,. Are they all living in a bubble?”
No, but on the other hand there is no evidence that young people have been put off going to university by the new system of student finance. If anything the reverse appears to be the case.
Experience in my own family bears that out.
David Allen 5th Feb ’15 – 12:03am
Your logic is perfect. 🙂
so Simon I will ask the same question
are you going to let us know what you think of HE funding and how it should be done in the future?
You think the current LD policy of no tuition fees is nonsense (I assume)
We know what you think of any plans to reduce them fro 9K because you do not seem to be prepared to countenance that there may be some subtleties
So do you believe in increasing fees, reducing them but changing how they are paid back, a graduate tax or the current Coalition policy…..I think I have made my view pretty clear as have others on this thread. You may not agree – but the least you could do is actually show a bit of backbone and tell us what you think
Or why not just stop…….
@stuart moran
“are you going to let us know what you think of HE funding and how it should be done in the future?”
Yes and No. I have already made a number of comments about how it was done in the past and at present. No, I’m not going to let you know how it should be done in the future – sorry if that wasn’t clear
“You think the current LD policy of no tuition fees is nonsense (I assume)”
If it were that, then it would clearly be nonsense – I think we would all agree on that. As I said previously, I don’t know what the present Lib Dem policy is. I can’t imagine the 2015 Lib Dem Manifesto won’t address it.
“We know what you think of any plans to reduce them fro 9K because you do not seem to be prepared to countenance that there may be some subtleties”
I’m assuming that after three years of Labour trying to come up with “subtleties” they’ve found that it’s a lot more complicated than Ed Miliband seems to have imagined.
So do you believe in increasing fees, reducing them but changing how they are paid back, a graduate tax or the current Coalition policy
I think it’s a lot easier to explain why you think policy A is better than policy B. On that basis, I’ve stated my view that the current student finance system is better than Labour’s previous one. Also that the current student finance system is better than Labour’s proposed one.
Of those 4 options you mention, I see a lot of arguments in favour of a graduate tax (but also some arguments against). Insofar as the present system comes a lot closer to that than Labour’s past or proposed systems, that’s one of the reasons why I prefer it.
Simon,
So you think the rise in tuition fees is encouraging more people to go into HE! Personally. I suspect that more youngster are going into HE because it is more or less an obligation under the current employment rules.
@Glenn
“So you think the rise in tuition fees is encouraging more people to go into HE! Personally. I suspect that more youngster are going into HE because it is more or less an obligation under the current employment rules.”
I think the evidence suggests that is the case. It’s not so much a case of a “rise in tuition fees”, but that young people (particularly those bright enough to go to university) are bright enough to see the present system as fairer – as a better bet in fact.
I think that’s because young people are far more likely to listen to what experts such as Martin Lewis – http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes – say, rather than boring politicians with an axe to grind.
Simon Shaw
If the debt is “a meaningless figure,” as Martyn Lewis says, why not go the whole hog and get rid of the debt in the first place?
Or is it meaningful to the government and the banksters in some other way?
Our daughter will start University in September and the thought of the debt she is starting of with is giving us sleepless nights. All the other parents we know are similarly worried sick. We want our kids to have an education and the best start in life so we have to cross our fingers and hope for the best. But that doesn’t mean that we are perfectly happy with the situation or that we feel we have a choice. We won’t forget or forgive the Parties that turned 9k into 27k .
Simon Shaw
In 2010 thousands of young people listened very closely to what some “..boring politicians with an axe to grind” said about tuition fees.
As a direct result they went out and voted Liberal Democrat, some worked for Liberal Democrat candidates at constituency level, some were even successful in getting Liberal Democrat MPs elected on a promise to “vote against” tuition fees. Voting against tuition fees was covered in the Coalition Agreement.
But you know what happened next. We all know what happened next.
Clegg and Laws and their man in the shadows Marshall, never ever wanted to do anything different on tuition fees from their Conservative friends. That is why they had fought the policy tooth and nail at Liberal Democrat conference before the election. Their aim was a “minimal state” and one way to cut down the state was to cut down state funding for students.
Putting ordinary people in debt so as to cut the government’s own was the aim. Trouble is it has not even worked on that level. The government’s debt has not been cut .
Instead of selling off any of the 15 golf courses owned by the MOD or cutting state expenditure on the activities of Prince Andrew or cancelling Trident these members of The Establishment happily put a generation of ordinary students into debt.
They’re the coming Generation Rent — people who will not get a mortgage because of their student debt.
@Glenn “Simon, So you think the rise in tuition fees is encouraging more people to go into HE”
@Simon Shaw “I think the evidence suggests that is the case.”
I don’t think there is evidence that the rise is “encouraging” more people to go into HE; that suggests a causative link that I don’t think any proponents of increased fees have explicitly tried to claim (though there statements do seem to imply it!). At best it is not discouraging them: the graphs presented by Caron elsewhere (https://www.libdemvoice.org/18-year-olds-from-disadvantaged-backgrounds-in-england-72-more-likely-to-apply-to-university-than-they-were-in-2006-44483.html) suggest that after a hiccough when the new scheme was introduced, a long term trend has reestablished itself.
Perhaps this is unsurprising. At the same time as increasing fees, the government did not offer young people a new alternative to the plans they had made for most of their lives, and at a time of great economic uncertainty, a large student loan might be less unattractive than unemployment or a zero-hours contract. Also, changes in the job market mean that many careers that did not traditionally require degrees do now (particularly nursing, which I seem to bang on about every time improved social mobility in university statistics is discussed).
Darn, “their statements” not “there statements”! The illiterate engineer in me is showing. 😉
@JohnTilley
“In 2010 thousands of young people listened very closely to what some “..boring politicians with an axe to grind” said about tuition fees.
As a direct result they went out and voted Liberal Democrat, some worked for Liberal Democrat candidates at constituency level, some were even successful in getting Liberal Democrat MPs elected on a promise to “vote against” tuition fees. Voting against tuition fees was covered in the Coalition Agreement.”
You’re absolutely correct. The populist (especially for the middle classes) previous Lib Dem policy was absolutely fantastic, so long as we never ended up getting anywhere near government.
The problem was that, with Labour and Conservatives taking a very similar (Browne Review – related) line, there is no way that the Lib Dems were going to get very far on this.
I think Nick, and Vince as well, had the sense to foresee this but they lost out to the populist forces in the Party.
Peter Watson,
I do not think raising tuition fees has increased HE take up. I was raising an exasperated rhetorical question. Hence the exclamation mark. I actually agree with you and would add that changes in employment law means, I suspect, some youngster take HE simply because they are still in education already and it seems more of a known quantity than say vocational training or having no money. If I’m honest I think HE is being used to mask youth unemployment in much the same way as YTS was used in the 80s. On the plus side doing something is better than doing nothing and it will have some social benefits. But if you look at the actual job market the growth seems to be in low skilled and low paid work. I do wonder what will happen when future governments and banks are forced to right off student loans taken 30 years in the past. As I said in an earlier post it’s one of those things that look like it is cutting a budget, but might very well cost more in the long run. I did not like the way Labour introduced tuition fees but keeping them low enough to pay off with much lower interest rates at least meant money was going back into the treasury. I always assumed that the Lib Dems pledge to abolish tuition fees was fully costed which is why I supported it.
Simon Shaw’
“you’re absolutely correct”
He is.
“I think Nick and Vince as well. had the sense to foresee this but they lost out to the populist forces in the Party”.
Ignored the reality that the populist forces were what was attracting voters and ended up making the Party extremely unpopular.
@Glenn “If I’m honest I think HE is being used to mask youth unemployment in much the same way as YTS was used in the 80s.”
I think there is an element of truth there. One of the perverse incentives increased by the the higher repayment threshold of the current scheme would seem to be that it if somebody has poor career prospects, they could choose a degree that does not enhance them (or that they have little interest in completing) and then receive a loan for maintenance and tuition fees that they never repay.
Simon Shaw
“….so long as we never ended up getting anywhere near government.”
I could argue that not many real Liberal Democrats have got anywhere near government.
If you were neither a member of The Quad nor a Secretary of State with a seat at the Cabinet Table you were not really anywhere near government.
As the Rory Bremner’s joke went on the new TV programme ‘Coalition Report’ — following the negotiations the Conservative Party got some Conservative policies enacted by the government; and the Liberal Democrats they also got some Conservative policies enacted by the government.
The Insitute of Government report by Nick Harvey (see separate thread) tells its own story. One of the biggest failures of 2010 was that the Liberal Democrats went into the negotiations with the Tories with copious detailed pages of policies but no strategy for how many cabinet seats, who should be a secretary of state, what role Liberal Democrats in The Lords should have etc etc. They left all that to Clegg who apparently was allowed to “wing it” with maybe the back of David Laws’ fag packet as a prompt. Of course when Laws left in disgrace three weeks later the fag packet was either lost or handed to Danny Alexander and it has been down hill ever since.
The point was that all Liberal Democrat MPs had to do was vote against the tuition fees. That was the promise and it would have been easy to keep that promise. It was a monumental act of political incompetence and poor judgement that Clegg did not grasp that selling out on tuition fees would be for him what Iraq was for Blair.
The opinion polls in Hallam may change in the next 13 weeks. Clegg may survive in his own seat. But since his humiliation on tuition fees – nobody has really taken him seriously as a national politician.
He is OK for a few laughs on The Last Leg, he still manages to get some sympathy from people who ought to know better, but when it comes to gravitas or trust we would be better off with Muffin The Mule as our leader.
John Tilley: However it is in effect, I hope you realised how monumentally and morally absurd that the comparison is as you wrote those words
Simon Shaw
My son is wanting to go to university in September. At the last election I voted LD because of their tuition fees policy because we always wanted the best for him. In fact I was persuaded to vote for them because I belived Clegg. He made such a big issue of it in the election (which I now know he didn’t mean) that I switched to LD. Now he doesn’t know what to do. I have saved for 3 years to send him, but it won’t even cover the first year. I don’ t want him saddled with £45,000 debt for the next 30 years. That is more than my first mortgage. No matter what Clegg says no one believes a word he says. Family, friends and colleagues all say the same thing including many former members. You can defend the policy all you want, but LD will not be forgiven by the voting public and rightly so.
@Simon Shaw
“I think that’s because young people are far more likely to listen to what experts such as Martin Lewis say, rather than boring politicians with an axe to grind.”
Lewis states on his website that he “didn’t support the change to student finance in 2012”. I take that to mean he preferred Labour’s system, unless for some odd reason he was opposed to something that he considered an improvement.
Lewis is very clear that the only reason he talks about tuition fees is that he wants to mitigate the harm done by the government and try to persuade young people not to be scared off university. If he is the best source for positive spin you can find for this wretched scheme, it must be even worse than I thought.
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2015/01/09/a-deliberate-threat-to-the-government-u-turn-on-the-21000-student-loan-repayment-threshold-i-will-organise-mass-protest/
@John Tilley
” It was a monumental act of political incompetence and poor judgement that Clegg did not grasp that selling out on tuition fees would be for him what Iraq was for Blair.”
Perceptive as ever. Though I would add that half the drop in Lib Dem support occurred before the tuition fees debacle. It was the Rose Garden that made people turn against Clegg; then tuition fees made them certain they would never go back.
@Stuart
“try to persuade young people not to be scared off university.”
That’s exactly what I was saying.
Glenn was suggesting that young people are put off going into HE because of the current student finance system.
I said that young people are far more likely to listen to what experts such as Martin Lewis say, which is to give the reasons why they should not be scared off going to university.
@Jackson
“My son is wanting to go to university in September…. I have saved for 3 years to send him, but it won’t even cover the first year. I don’ t want him saddled with £45,000 debt for the next 30 years.”
But why are you doing that? One of my sons went to university in 2012, aged 25. That means that he was under the new student finance system. He could easily have chosen to go a few years earlier, which would have been under the old student finance system, BUT HE DIDN’T.
You might think my son is stupid, but he really isn’t. He presumably saw the advantages of the new system: that low earners pay less than before, while high earners pay more.
Simon Shaw.
I said that other factors were more important in attracting people to university than tuition fees. I would like to see them lowered so it becomes easier to abolish them. Britain has the most expensive allegedly public education system in Europe and I would like to see tuition fees go the way they’ve gone in Germany where politicians were basically forced to scrap them or lose their seats. The job of politicians is to represent not lecture their voters and when they stop doing this they start to lose the electorate. which means that political system becomes unstable and starts to fuel extremism. All political power is based on an ideological trade off between the elected and the electorate, idealism working with populism. To get elected you have to offer some things the voters want or you will not get elected. This is why all the major English Parties are losing votes.
@Glenn
“I would like to see tuition fees go the way they’ve gone in Germany where politicians were basically forced to scrap them or lose their seats … To get elected you have to offer some things the voters want or you will not get elected.”
I think what you say is interesting, although depressing.
That’s why I referred earlier to the “populist (especially for the middle classes) previous Lib Dem policy (which) was absolutely fantastic, so long as we never ended up getting anywhere near government.”
The problem with your German approach is that it takes money from everyone, including relatively low paid non-graduates, and pays for the HE of (predominently middle class) students, many or most of whom will go on to be high earners. In contrast, the current English system requires nothing up front and very little in the way of repayments for graduates who only achieve average earnings (or less), while requiring much higher repayments from high earners.
I regard that as a politically progressive system. For some reason many people who would claim to be politically progressive say they are against it.
Simon Shaw
You have nothing interesting to say, despite so many posts
Can you give us all a break now…..?
We have all grown bored with your pedantic and condescending attitude
Simon Shaw
Why am I doing it? Because I don’t want him saddled with £45000 debt. That’s why. Imagine starting life with that. Unfortunately thanks to the lib Dems that’s what he’ll get if he goes.
You mention that the German system takes money from everyone go pay for HE. Well isn’t that the same principle of the NHS. I mean I pay my taxes, but haven’t used it this year so us that fair. And doesn’t society as a whole benefit from having well educated professionals, so why shouldn’t society pay for it.
Again Simon comes out with the “Populist – Bad, my son – Good” argument. Sadly to get elected you have to be populist to an extent or you don’t get elected. The alternative is to have beautiful policies and never any power. Simon seems to prefer that.
In 2010, with a fair bit of electoral luck thrown in, we managed it. Some parliamentary power for the first time in decades. Nick sadly blew it as soon as he got his bum on the seat of a ministerial Jag, by ignoring the people who voted for him. Progressive maybe, a failure definitely.
We need graduates to provide us with Doctors to treat us, scientists to make our world better, lawyers to represent us when we are in trouble, engineers to design our roads, bridges, vacuum cleaners etc., teachers to educate our kids etc etc. Without graduates what sort of world would we be left with? Therefore it is in all our interests to fund their education. That is why I believe higher education should be funded from General taxation. And let’s not forget that those graduates go on to become higher rate tax payers.
@ Phyllss
I generally agree, although think it might be fair for students to pay something – maybe annual fees of around £2,000 -£3,000. but not £9.000! The fees charged should bear some sort of relationships to the actual teaching students are getting, with a strong element of subsidy because – as you say – society needs teachers, doctors and engineers. While students are studying they are also not claiming benefit which they might otherwise have had to do because of the jobs shortage. Interest rates on student loans are now four times higher than when loans first started which also makes degrees all the more expensive now.
@Jackson
“Why am I doing it? Because I don’t want him saddled with £45000 debt. That’s why. Imagine starting life with that. Unfortunately thanks to the lib Dems that’s what he’ll get if he goes. “
But if your son ends up in a relatively high paying job he will end up paying more Income Tax than the average, easily amounting to another £45,000 extra. So that’s a further £45,000 “debt” that he could be liable for.
Isn’t the logic of your position that you need to put money to one side to cover that eventuality as well? Is that what you are doing, and if not, why not?
@David Evans
“Again Simon comes out with the “Populist – Bad, my son – Good” argument. Sadly to get elected you have to be populist to an extent or you don’t get elected. The alternative is to have beautiful policies and never any power. Simon seems to prefer that.”
I’m sorry, David, but I have always been opposed to populism in politics. And I don’t accept that you have to be a little bit populist to get elected.
I’m all for talking about political ideas in a popular way, but I regard that as very different from populism
As far as I know Martin Lewis is worth a good few millions now, so I doubt personally he is too bothered about WHAT Tuition fee system is in place.
I am a criminal defence legal aid lawyer, my wife is an NHS Speech Therapist, we graduated from Manchester Uni 30 years ago now, and are still on modest incomes. Our eldest son is at Manchester now also and wants to teach, middle son is doing a 5 year Vet degree and will leave uni owing £45 K in fees alone – an English friend of his moved to Scotland a few years ago and will qualify as a vet owing nothing. My son has no interest in being an equine vet in the Home Counties and is therefore unlikely ever to be a big earner. Son no.3 has been accepted for medical school this year and again will qualify owing £45K in fees alone. The recent report showed that this system will cost the same as the previous one DESPITE the trebling of Fees. I am proud my kids value “public service” but It’s a hell of a debt burden to start making your way in the world with isn’t it ?? Mr Shaw needs to get off his hobby horse and start inhabiting the real world – none of my family are voting Lib Dem this time, and I’d been a member since my Uni days 30 years ago. GET Real and stop your ridiculous “hectoring” Mr Shaw.
@Simon Shaw “But if your son ends up in a relatively high paying job he will end up paying more Income Tax than the average, easily amounting to another £45,000 extra. So that’s a further £45,000 “debt” that he could be liable for.”
I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at here, but he’d be paying that same income tax in addition to repaying the student loan.
But there are good reasons why somebody might choose to avoid a large student debt.
For a graduate who goes on to earn a high salary, paying tuition fees up front and avoiding the loan can lead to a significant saving. Obviously that’s a gamble, and one that is easier for those with wealth and good career expectations, but when the coalition government increased the interest rate on repaying student loans which applies to tuition fees and to maintenance, some of the progressiveness of the policy went out of the window as those wealthy enough to avoid the loan have a stronger incentive to benefit from doing so.
Also, I don’t know Jackson’s background, but there might be cultural or religious reasons for being averse to debt. It is reported that some Muslims have been put off going to university and that a Sharia-compliant scheme will be available in a year or two.
@cllr Nick Cotter
“The recent report showed that this system will cost the same as the previous one DESPITE the trebling of Fees.”
Don’t you realise what you are saying there, Nick?
What does the fact that the new system costs the same as the previous one really mean? It can only mean one thing, which is low earning graduates are paying less while higher earning graduates are paying more. You, with your potentially high earning children, may regard that as a bad thing; I regard it as a good thing.
Like you, my view of the present system v. Labour’s system is coloured by my own children’s circumstances. Like you, the majority of my children work in (or want to work in) “public service” jobs, although mostly not as high paying as your children’s prospective jobs. Specifically, my eldest (now 27 yr old) son is in the last year of his degree course and wants to become a primary teacher; one daughter works in a Childrens Centre; the other daughter works in the care sector with young people with disabilities.
One of my daughters spent just a year at university before leaving and has an outstanding Student Loan under Labour’s system. Even though her annual earnings are around NMW level she had to repay some Student Loan last year.
I’m sorry, Nick, but if you are defending the fact that, under Labour’s system, my daughter at those low earnings has to pay back some of her Student Loan then you are clearly not a Liberal Democrat who believes in fairness and equity. Under the present Student Finance system she wouldn’t have had to pay back anything last year.
Incidentally, what does what somebody sold their website for have to do with the truth of what they say? I think we leave those sorts of smear to Labour.
@cllr Nick Cotter “I am proud my kids value “public service” but It’s a hell of a debt burden to start making your way in the world with isn’t it ??”
You have good reason to be proud of your kids.
The tuition fees scheme does seem to introduce some perverse incentives. For example, the state will end up picking up the costs for those who spend 3 years living and studying something that has lousy career prospects, whilst scientists, engineers, medics, vets, dentists, etc. will be subsidising that by paying off expensive debts incurred over 4-5 years of study. At university a friend who wanted to go into medical research followed a 5 year medicine degree with a break in the middle to study a BSc and a PhD. I knew others who wanted to specialise in oral surgery so studied medicine after their dentistry degree (though studied the 1st and 2nd years at the same time). I shudder to think just how big – and off-putting – would be the student loan for someone doing that nowadays, but these are the sort of people we need.
@Simon Shaw “It can only mean one thing, which is low earning graduates are paying less while higher earning graduates are paying more.”
It could mean a lot of things, not least that the politicians miscalculated and there will be insufficient money coming in from graduates. High earning graduates could pay less than anticipated by repaying early and the wealthiest might opt out of the loans system altogether. There might be more low paid graduates than expected so more debts are written off.
Besides which, the policy was supposed to improve the funding of tertiary education, not simply be a means to redistribute money away from employable graduates. If it costs more than the previous scheme then it is failing.
@cllr Nick Cotter “As far as I know Martin Lewis is worth a good few millions now, so I doubt personally he is too bothered about WHAT Tuition fee system is in place.”
Martin Lewis seems like a decent sort. He has tried to provide advice to students and parents even though he did not support the change to student finance in 2012, he has pointed out how the wealthiest could benefit from this scheme, and he has threatened to organise protests if the government goes back on promises to raise the repayment threshold.
My basic disagreement with Martyn Lewis is his statement that debt figures are basically meaningless. If that is so, then we should abolish the debt – that is, get rid of the tuition fees entirely, just like Germany has done.
However, the bottom line is that the banks and the government do not regard the debt as meaningless – that is why the tuition fees are there.
And like it or not, a good number of parliamentary seats will be lost to the Lib Dems in May based on this refusal to stand up for fairness in the way the Germans have done.
@Peter Watson
“Besides which, the policy was supposed to improve the funding of tertiary education, not simply be a means to redistribute money away from employable graduates.”
I just think it’s really strange that a lot of people, many of whom probably describe themselves as being “on the Left”, claim to oppose a system which is more redistributative than Labour’s previous scheme.
@Tsar Nicolas
“My basic disagreement with Martyn Lewis is his statement that debt figures are basically meaningless. If that is so, then we should abolish the debt – that is, get rid of the tuition fees entirely, just like Germany has done.”
The current system is close to a Graduate Tax. If we had a fully-fledged Graduate Tax, particularly one with a Lifetime Cap on the total amount paid – say £60,000, then it would be perfectly possible for people to refer to this as a “£60,000 debt on graduation”. But, just as Martin Lewis says of the current system, that would be “basically meaningless”. There would be lots of graduates who don’t end up getting to the Lifetime Cap, with no sanctions because of that, so it’s not a debt in the normal sense of the word – hence “meaningless” (although personally I’d use a word like “notional”, or “theoretical”).
That’s what we have with the present system.
“And like it or not, a good number of parliamentary seats will be lost to the Lib Dems in May based on this refusal to stand up for fairness in the way the Germans have done.”
Except that the new system is fairer than the previous Labour one. If any seats are lost because of this it is much more likely because the Lib Dems were unable to deliver on a middle class subsidy, and the middle classes vote.
Simon Shaw
“The current system is close to a Graduate Tax.”
But it’s not a graduate tax – it is a debt which will in future years be a drag on the economy and a deterrent to home ownership. In fact, if people are paying this close-to-a-graduate-tax-thingummy until their early 50’s, it seems more like debt servitude.
@Simon Shaw
“The problem with your German approach is that it takes money from everyone, including relatively low paid non-graduates, and pays for the HE of (predominently middle class) students, many or most of whom will go on to be high earners.”
You are so close to getting it there Simon. Yes, under a system funded by general taxation, “many or most” graduates will go on to become high earners and hence go on to pay more in tax than other people. It’s called investment. You are imagining a financing problem that doesn’t actually exist. You’d be on much firmer ground arguing that there is a problem in financing health care that requires a “sick tax” on those who end up in hospital.
Simon.
As someone the left, the reason that poor people may repay less than those on middling (graduate) incomes. It is that the most able to repay are being subsidised by those on middling incomes as well.
If the system is viewed from the stance of poorest vs the rest, then it is mildly redistributive. However that rather selective view ignores a regressive aspect to the policy.
As others have noted, “even” the most lowly in society benefit from doctors, nurses, teachers, scientists, lawyers,… It is not obvious why society should not therefore invest in its future health, education, legal rights and so on.
Simon Shaw
You only look at this as a purely financial transaction and, asJohn Broggio has pointed out, the main losers are those in the middle.
Personally, I find your focus just on money as one -dimensional
If you want to take out unfairness completely then campaign for the removal of the many and vast subsidies that we all pay to the rich – we can start symbolically by getting rid of any subsidies to the Windsors and then to all the big landowners. Perhaps also those people who own our media but funnily aren’t domiciled here for tax. What has Clegg said to Cameron about Lord Ashcroft? More popular targets (apart from the Windsors) than students surely
These are all cases where unfairness abounds
With tuition fees though you have to look at a bigger picture – education is an investment and without an educated work force we will wither on the vine – most of the rest of the world sees that and has much lower fees payable by the student than us
If we want to attack the fact that the poor are not represented enough in university, and are elbowed out by the middle classes, then I agree with you and would happily support the abolition of tax breaks to public schools as a first step. We can then look at how we combat this problem – I find loading students with debt not being the best thing to do though
The point about ‘graduate tax’ vs ‘debt’ – if you want a graduate tax then implement one, don’t do it and call it a loan! The problem is that it is apparently neither and the clear risk is that we are loading this debt on future tax payers.
Someone has to pay for education, it is a zero sum gain
Cost of HE=student borrowing + Government borrowing + Taxation
It is just where you balance it – I personally think it should go more on taxation but you are happy to fund it by borrowing more (either from students of by the Government). Of the choice of those two borrowing I think the Government doing it is better as it can get much better rates than the student gets
If we see HE as an investment then borrowing to invest is, I believe, a Lib Dem policy. In Tory terms they see Government borrowing as being out of the question and they also want to reduce taxation – not sure how that works unless you load more and more on the student or reduce the left hand side of the equation. Also, we are currently borrowing in order to fund the current student population
As the Lib Dem general economic direction seems to be more towards Labour than the Tories (borrow to invest), can you please explain why in all this discussion you have never criticised the Conservative Party? Are you really a Lib Dem anymore?
@Simon Shaw
If the new system is so fantastic then why didn’t Clegg ,etc advocate a similar system at the last election as opposed to deliberately courting the student vote with a pledge to abolish them. According to the manifesto they had a costed plan to abolish them over 6 years and instantly abolish them for final year students. I believed them. Did you? Instead as soon as they got into power they trebled them hiding behind the Brown Report. The LD’s could have “died in a ditch” over this, but they didn’t. Instead they chose to betray their voters to appease Tories. I live in Clegg’s constituency and believe me local LD’s are in panic mode. I’ve had 4 leaflets this week and 3 home visits since Xmas, and I’ve seen them told to leave doorsteps on many occasions. People used to respect Clegg as a man of principle around here, but no more. I think he’s finished as a local MP. I get the feeling that he’s a gonner *crosses fingers.
Oh and Simon
On the grounds of openness and disclosure I will make my personal situation clear
Degree and PhD in a scientific discipline. No tuition fees but I didn’t receive a maintenance grant. Finished, after 6 and bit years in the early 90s
What was your history – did you go to university for free like I did?
@John Broggio
“the most able to repay are being subsidised by those on middling incomes as well.”
Simon should know this, since the Martin Lewis page he keeps recommending has a table showing that someone taking out a fees and maintenance grant loan and earning £40,000 will end up paying a whopping £39,000 MORE than someone on £50,000. Yet Simon keeps trumpeting how progressive the system is.
You have to hand it to Simon. It takes party loyalty beyond the limit I would have thought possible to support a system that will cost people like his own son (a prospective primary school teacher) around £100,000. Primary school teachers are a great benefit to us all, parents and non-parents alike – how can it be fair to clobber them with such a ludicrous extra tax burden?
Moreover, if Martin Lewis is right and the government is considering freezing the payment threshold, then these already-appalling figures will rise steeply. Simon’s entire argument, weak as it is already, would collapse entirely if any changes were made to the threshold and real interest rate. One of the most invidious features of the current system is that these parameters can be changed with ease.
@Tsar Nicolas
“Simon Shaw – ‘The current system is close to a Graduate Tax.’
But it’s not a graduate tax – it is a debt which will in future years be a drag on the economy and a deterrent to home ownership. In fact, if people are paying this close-to-a-graduate-tax-thingummy until their early 50’s, it seems more like debt servitude.”
I think you could equally well say that at (true) Graduate Tax was a “drag on the economy and a deterrent to home ownership”.
If you accept that is is close to a Graduate Tax, but not one, it might help if you identified the key ways in which you consider it different. I’d be amazed if, between us, we ended up considering any of them relevant to the issues under discussion.
@Stuart
“You are so close to getting it there Simon. Yes, under a system funded by general taxation, “many or most” graduates will go on to become high earners and hence go on to pay more in tax than other people. It’s called investment. You are imagining a financing problem that doesn’t actually exist.”
I think my view is expressed simply as follows: if the individual student ultimately enjoys a financial benefit, through higher earning, from their HE, what is so wrong about the indididual paying back part of the benefit they receive?
For the individual it’s an investment as well.
Simon Shaw
I think that payback is called income tax…..you may have heard of it!
Oh but wait some people who earn a lot don’t go to university – but then again other advantages such as the vast majority of inheritances, capital gains on houses and lottery wins are also not taxed but can be used to give someone a ‘helping hand’
Funny that someone receiving an education is deemed to be required to pay it back but those who have been gifted a large amount of money from the ridiculous house price rise and luck in winning the lottery can keep all that without being asked to give anything back
Education is an investment for us all and we should all contribute! Focus on ensuring all those who have the capability can get to go, rather than making those who do go pay a penalty!
@stuart moran
I think my answer to Stuart addresses a lot of your points.
Simon Shaw
In your mind it does perhaps – but it doesn’t really does it?
Can I ask you again if you were a beneficiary of free university education – and, if yes, what voluntary contributions have you made to say a charity or college in order to make up for your increased earning power based on that?
If you didn’t go perhaps you are just a bit envious…..
@Jackson
“If the new system is so fantastic then why didn’t Clegg ,etc advocate a similar system at the last election as opposed to deliberately courting the student vote with a pledge to abolish them. According to the manifesto they had a costed plan to abolish them over 6 years and instantly abolish them for final year students.”
I think that the three main answers to your question are that:
(1) the Lib Dem Party policy on tuition fees was determined by the Party Conference and Nick Clegg had to accept it, whatever his own personal view. I think there were press reports before the 2010 GE that Nick had major concerns with the policy, but I accept your point about the General Election campaign.
(2) the new system (fantastic or not) was a slight tweaking of the outcome of the Browne Commission which was instituted by Labour, It didn’t report until October 2010, so neither Nick nor anyone else could realistically advocate the Browne proposal 6 months or more before it was published. You may consider it significant that Labour deliberately arranged for the Browne Commission to report in the early months of the new parliament.
(3) Labour and the Conservatives both support the principles of the Browne Commission recommendations, so there was never any prospect of the Lib Dem manifesto proposals being implemented.
Simon Shaw
Point 1 is fair enough but he has to accept it as he is a member of a democratic party
How does the policy being for abolition of tuition fees then translate into a pledge to vote against them….surely that was not obligatory for him and constitutes a massive lapse in judgement?
On point 2 – when did Clegg ever say the LD policy was linked to the Browne Report – he had already pledged to vote against any rise in tuition fees so it is irrelevant. The Tories and Labour hid behind this but the Lib Dems didn’t…or was this another thing that he changed his mind on but neglected to tell the voters
On point 3 – what is the point of a Liberal Democrat manifesto – see also the point on the pledge
Accept it Simon, your leader has no credibility with the electors, even it seems in his own constituency!
@stuart moran
“Funny that someone receiving an education is deemed to be required to pay it back but those who have been gifted a large amount of money from the ridiculous house price rise and luck in winning the lottery can keep all that without being asked to give anything back”
On the first point I haven’t argued that someone receiving an education should be required to pay it back. What I am arguing for is that those who benefit financially (on a personal basis) from HE should pay back part of the cost, and that those who benefit most should repay the most.
I honestly don’t see how you can argue against that.
On the second point, you seem to be forgetting about Inheritance Tax (very much an area where the Lib Dems stopped the Conservatives from introducing a tax giveaway for the wealthy) and betting duty that there is (I believe) on the Lottery.
@stuart moran
“Education is an investment for us all and we should all contribute! Focus on ensuring all those who have the capability can get to go, rather than making those who do go pay a penalty!”
Is anyone arguing that we shouldn’t all contribute? I think the problem (unless I misunderstood you) is that you think that the taxpayer should pay ALL the cost.
It’s incorrect to say that everybody who goes into HE under the current system “pays a penalty”. It’s only those who go into HE and end up earning at least a reasonable income, who “pay a penalty” (just like a Graduate Tax).
Simon Shaw
I don’t argue against it – people who earn more pay more through a progressive income tax whether they go to university or not – that is right.
I argue that ideally all the money would come from taxation but I could accept that some of the cash would come from a nominal tuition fee but not 9K – those who end up having to pay it back pay too much
I do not see education as anything but an investment in the society in which we live.
I would go further and make a tertiary education level available for everyone at some point in their life – something that is not helped by the destruction of the FE sector which could help cater for that
Inheritance taxis set at too high a threshold – as someone who is advocating 9K tuition fees I would expect you to join in me in introducing a much lower threshold – this income is unearned and untaxed
I would even consider going further and introducing capital gains on house sales (unless reinvested in buying a main residence) and on lottery wins
Funny that ‘fair’ only goes so far
Simon Shaw
The vast bulk of the cost now falls on the student…or it should do but that depends on the forecasts for paying back and at the moment it does look like a future tax payer is going to have to contribute more – but in an unplanned way. At the moment it is paid for by borrowing cos there is no money coming in
That share is far too high – I would ideally go back to fully tax payer funded but accept for a number of reasons that a fee of 1-2K per year should be levied
I do think that tuition fees as they stand are a penalty for those who go into HE
Did you go to university?
@stuart moran
“Point 1 is fair enough but he has to accept it as he is a member of a democratic party
How does the policy being for abolition of tuition fees then translate into a pledge to vote against them….surely that was not obligatory for him and constitutes a massive lapse in judgement?
On point 2 – when did Clegg ever say the LD policy was linked to the Browne Report – he had already pledged to vote against any rise in tuition fees so it is irrelevant. The Tories and Labour hid behind this but the Lib Dems didn’t…or was this another thing that he changed his mind on but neglected to tell the voters
On point 3 – what is the point of a Liberal Democrat manifesto – see also the point on the pledge”
1. Nick apologised over the Pledge, and I also agree with you about the “lapse of judgement”. My own view is that, as a politician, you should never sign up to other people’s pledges (in this case the NUS). Had I been a parliamentary candidate in 2010 I hope I would have refused to do so.
2. I don’t understand what you are saying. I was responding to Jackson who asked (I thought) why Nick Clegg hadn’t advocated a Browne-type system 6 months before Browne came up with the idea
3. In that sense, what is the point of any party’s manifesto? Most parties are going to lose the election. And, in case you didn’t notice the Lib Dems did not win the 2010 General Election.
@Simon Shaw
“I think my view is expressed simply as follows: if the individual student ultimately enjoys a financial benefit, through higher earning, from their HE, what is so wrong about the indididual paying back part of the benefit they receive?”
They already do in income and other taxes – in spades. It seems like a week ago now that I quoted government figures which show that on average someone with a 2:1 degree will pay an additional quarter of a million pounds in tax over their lifetime compared with if they did not go to university. They were already paying back the cost of their course and plenty more besides.
“those who benefit most should repay the most”
With that in mind, what do you think about the figures on Martin Lewis’ site which show that someone earning £50,000 ends up paying far less than someone earning £40,000?
@Stuart
“With that in mind, what do you think about the figures on Martin Lewis’ site which show that someone earning £50,000 ends up paying far less than someone earning £40,000?”
I think it would be great if changes could be made so that it was the other way round. Is that what you would support?
@Stuart
“Simon Shaw – if the individual student ultimately enjoys a financial benefit, through higher earning, from their HE, what is so wrong about the indididual paying back part of the benefit they receive?”
They already do in income and other taxes – in spades. It seems like a week ago now that I quoted government figures which show that on average someone with a 2:1 degree will pay an additional quarter of a million pounds in tax over their lifetime compared with if they did not go to university. They were already paying back the cost of their course and plenty more besides.”
Consider 3 people in what Einstein would, I believe, have called a thought experiment:
A and B are equally bright and work equally hard
A doesn’t go to university and earns an average of £25,000 pa over his/her working life.
B does go to university and earns an average of £40,000 pa over his/her working life.
C is brighter and/or works harder than A or B; doesn’t go to university and and earns an average of £40,000 pa over his/her working life.
Under the current system C would have net earnings more than B, which would be more than A.
You appear to think that C and B should have the same net earnings, which would (of course) be more than A.
Why is that fair?
Simon Shaw
If they all have an equal chance to go to university then that is a decision they take themselves and can’t really complain about it.
What if C is not brighter but works for his daddy’s firm…shall we say that it is not fair and s/he should pay extra tax for the advantage they have?
I would focus on making sure each person can make their own decision about whether to go or not than say that anyone who does decide to go has to pay a lot for it
Actually in your example C will probably earn more than B as his/her working life will be 3-7 years longer…..up to an extra £280K…seems like a nice advantage to me
Education is important to me…look at the evolution
At the moment free schooling finishes at 18. When I was at school over 50% left at 16, should those staying on have paid for doing so? In the past it used to be 14 or even 12…..times have changed.
Could we not say that free education is available to 21, with the final 3 years being deferred for anyone who wants? Why is compulsory education to 18 better than 21?
I have a feeling you didn’t go to university and still have a bit of a chip on the shoulder about it….
@Simon
“I think it would be great if changes could be made so that it was the other way round.”
But you’ve been claiming the current system IS the other way round (for instance, 6th Feb 7:43pm).
@Simon
“Consider 3 people in what Einstein would, I believe, have called a thought experiment”
You might want to think about what Einstein said about compound interest.
“You appear to think that C and B should have the same net earnings, which would (of course) be more than A.”
Of course – if they both get £40K jobs I don’t see why they shouldn’t have the same net earnings. The fact that C passed on educational opportunities that were open to him (and could have allowed him to increase his earnings yet further) should not give him an advantage over B.
Would you make the same argument at any other level of education? 16-18? High school? Primary school? If not, why not?
Simon Shaw
My own experience is such
As you like a scenario – I will give you one that is real (my own)
I work in manufacturing. I have a friend who does the same job as me who started an apprenticeship at 17 and worked his way up the company. I did a degree and PhD. We both work hard and are probably as equally bright. he chose, it was a conscious decision, not to go to A Level and university as he wanted to start work – he would have got there no problems
He has 8 years linger career than me….earned a lot more than I have done. He also has a non-contributory final salary pension contractual….I don’t. He will be able to retire at 55 with a full occupational pension above the average wage and his house is almost paid off. I will have to go on much longer to get the same
According to you, using the same example from now, I should be paying also at least 27K + interest back (assuming I didn’t need any maintenance grants for the privilege of earning less and having a much worse pension
Using your question…
is that fair?
@stuart moran
“If they all have an equal chance to go to university then that is a decision they take themselves and can’t really complain about it.”
Is that really your considered response? It’s not about whether A, B or C have “anything to complain about”. It’s about fairness in the taxation system and the student finance system.
“What if C is not brighter but works for his daddy’s firm…shall we say that it is not fair and s/he should pay extra tax for the advantage they have?”
Well that’s not going to be C then, but rather a D. If you really want to extend my thought experiement then that’s fine by me.
“I would focus on making sure each person can make their own decision about whether to go or not than say that anyone who does decide to go has to pay a lot for it”
But somebody has to “pay a lot for it”, it’s just that you think the somebody should be wholly the taxpayer. I think that those like B, who derive a significant personal financial benefit, should pay PART of the cost. You, apparently, don’t.
Stuart
“Simon – ‘I think it would be great if changes could be made so that it was the other way round.’
But you’ve been claiming the current system IS the other way round (for instance, 6th Feb 7:43pm).”
Having reread what I said, I can’t see how it relates to what you are claiming.
Just to be clear: I’m quite sure that the current system can be improved and made even fairer. All I’ve ever said is that, in my opinion, it happens to be better and fairer than the previous (Labour) system.
“But somebody has to “pay a lot for it”, it’s just that you think the somebody should be wholly the taxpayer. I think that those like B, who derive a significant personal financial benefit, should pay PART of the cost.”
Ah. I hadn’t realised that those going to university will be exempt from income tax and thus pay none of the cost of their education. Your concerns make complete sense now.
@stuart moran
“Using your question… is that fair?”
Simple answer in the context of what we are discussing here … Yes!
Answer in general terms, as in “Is life fair?”… Quite possibly not.
What I mean is that you are mixing up issues which are simply bad luck or bad timing (eg. that as your friend started slightly earlier via an apprenticeship, he was able to get into a very good pension scheme, which may have been withdrawn a few years later when you started) with the general issues of principle as to whether those who personally gain from HE should pay for some of the cost.
@John Broggio
I think you need to reread my posting at 6.19pm.
Simon Shaw
I assume you have not read my posts where I have conceded (against my principles by the way) that some contribution may be necessary in order to ensure responsibilisation. John’s point thought is entirely just here as well that income tax covers most of that.
What I did say was that £9K is far too high – you seem to think that it is the right number as you have never stopped maomning about Labour wanting to reduce it to £6K (I know what your response will be to this so don’t bother it is as wrong and tedious as it was before)
I am not mixing things at all in my scenario
That same scenario could happen now and the person from University will still be far worse off than the other – in my case I don’t care really because them’s the breaks but it also shows some flaws in your argument
You have also not addressed the fact that in your scenario C would earn at least £120K more than B because B started work at least 3 years later – you would also add a massive debt on top of that wouldn’t you
I suppose I must just value the concept of universal education more than you do, and again you haven’t answered as to whether you went o university or not – a pertinent point as if you did we could ask how you feel about taking such a hard line when you accepted a free education yourself, if not then I may conclude you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about HE
@Simon
You said that high earners pay more. But Martin Lewis says that beyond £41,000, people start paying less the more they earn.
Is this the kind of thing you have in mind when you keep calling the system more “fair” than the previous one?
I don’t know what happened under Labour’s system at higher incomes, but since Lewis states that this is due to the effect of compound interest, and the Labour scheme had a zero real interest rate, I’m assuming there was no such regressiveness at higher incomes.
“the general issues of principle as to whether those who personally gain from HE should pay for some of the cost.”
When have they ever not?
You haven’t made any attempt whatsoever to explain why the beneficiaries of HE should be treated any differently to other beneficiaries of public services (or at least what used to be public services), such as 16-18 students, high school students, sick people. My dad underwent a major heart operation a few months ago that would have cost the NHS around the same amount as three years worth of Lib Dem tuition fees. Nobody will benefit from this other than himself. Why shouldn’t he be forced to pay a “cardiac tax” to cover the costs?
Mr Shaw,
I would be FAR More Interested to know your “children’s” views on the Lib Dem Tuition Fees Debacle ? !!
The sheer number of posts on here – about 1/2 being from you reflects VERY Poorly on you Mr Shaw and the Lib Dems (my ex-party of 30 years,) when Iast checked there were 3 posts( two of which were mine) on the Paul Walters article about 18 Million Images of our population being held on an “Illegal” police database.
What are your views on that Simon Shaw et al ??
@Stuart
“You said that high earners pay more. But Martin Lewis says that beyond £41,000, people start paying less the more they earn.
Is this the kind of thing you have in mind when you keep calling the system more “fair” than the previous one?”
When I say I regard it as fairer than Labour’s system, that means overall. I have already said that there are undoubtably aspects which could be tweaked to make it fairer still.
“You haven’t made any attempt whatsoever to explain why the beneficiaries of HE should be treated any differently to other beneficiaries of public services (or at least what used to be public services), such as 16-18 students, high school students, sick people.”
It happens that I did address that on another LDV thread a couple of weeks ago. The simple explanation is that those people don’t benefit financially at all or nearly as much as those who benefit from HE.
Simon Shaw
You really are tying yourself up in knots now…..
and looking ridiculous….I am not sure why we keep replying to you as the rest of the other posters seem to have given up
@Simon
“The simple explanation is that those people don’t benefit financially at all or nearly as much as those who benefit from HE.”
And your evidence for that assertion is…?
@Stuart
“Simon Shaw – ‘The simple explanation is that those people don’t benefit financially at all or nearly as much as those who benefit from HE.’
And your evidence for that assertion is…?”
I think common sense as much as anything.
@cllr Nick Cotter
“Mr Shaw,
I would be FAR More Interested to know your “children’s” views on the Lib Dem Tuition Fees Debacle ? !!
The sheer number of posts on here – about 1/2 being from you reflects VERY Poorly on you Mr Shaw and the Lib Dems (my ex-party of 30 years,) when Iast checked there were 3 posts( two of which were mine) on the Paul Walters article about 18 Million Images of our population being held on an “Illegal” police database.
What are your views on that Simon Shaw et al ??”
On your first point, Nick, has it ever occured to you that your own children’s reported opposition to the present student finace system may have more to do with their own self-interest, as students heading for highly paid professional careers, than any point of principle as to whether system A is fairer than system B?
On your second point, I’m not sure why the number of posts on here should reflect poorly on me, you, other posters or the Lib Dem Party. I’ve thought that a lot of the explanation for the (relatively) high number of postings is that clearly a number of posters wanted to “defend” the Labour Party against the charge, made by Vince and others that “Labour making regressive changes that benefit higher earning graduates before lower earners”. I couldn’t help feeling that they knew Labour was on trouble on the issue – after all they’ve had over 40 months to try to flesh out the details on their policy first announced in 2011.