That’s the title of this article by Jack McKenna over at the Speaker’s Chair website. Here’s an excerpt in which Jack explains why he made the decision to switch from Labour to the Lib Dems:
… like a lot of politcos without a party affiliation I started to develop a “man without a country” feel. I know I was a Lib Dem in my gut and the only reason I didn’t join the Lib Dems in the first place was because I was still furious over the tuition fees debacle. However this anger subsided as I realized the system was in all but name a graduate tax. Also if we refuse to vote or join parties because of what they’ve done in the past how many of us would ever be a member or a voter? Every time I watch the news and see how Iraq is sliding ever closer to civil war I curse Labour, and every time I drive through an old mining village I curse the Conservatives. The fact is compromise is the name of the game in politics and we all have to accept that hard truth.
So why the Lib Dems? To answer the question I posed earlier, I think they’re the only party that are serious about keeping us in the EU. The Tories are running scared of UKIP and are infested with eurosceptics right up to the Cabinet table. Labour has numerous eurosceptics within in its ranks and really doesn’t have a clue what it’s doing on one of the most important issues out there. I’m also very impressed by the broad church that the Lib Dems offer: their green credentials, their ability to be pro-business and yet distribute wealth fairly. Their radical commitment to constitutional change; the only party that are serious about reforming the House of Lords and our voting system.
The Lib Dems will fight for our civil liberties, an area Labour should feel royally embarrassed after their time in office. Just look at our anti-terror legislation as one example. Yes, they brought in the Humans Rights Act, but they also brought in stop and search and would have had 90 days detention without charge if they had got their way. These are just some of the reasons I joined the Lib Dems.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
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
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
paul barker
Neil Hickman
95 Comments
He joined the Labour party 14 months ago. Presumably by the time of the next election he will have joined the Tories.
Having looked at Jack McKenna’s piece, he seems to have left the Labour Party because he was surprised to find out that some of its members like Trade Unions. Then he joined the Lib Dems because it has done lots of things he dislikes but he believes they did not really mean it. Have to agree with AndrewR, Tory party by 2015.
The LibDems could do without people like this!
Jack,
Welcome to the Liberal Democrats, and I hope that we prove to be a worthwhile recipient of your faith and active support. And, if not, then do remain engaged in civic society, for it is better to engage constructively than to carp on the sidelines.
@ AndrewR and Peter Watson,
Give him a break, for pity’s sake. He’s developed his views and sees the world differently, and your response is to belittle his enthusiasm. Take a good hard look at yourselves, gentlemen, or are you seriously saying that people can’t change their minds?
Lib Dem membership is a bit cheaper, especially if you are on a reasonable income. (Labour’s is weighted – from each according his means…) And we already have OMOV, though admittedly occasionally perverted by SPADS and other payroll members.
@Mark
Totally agree. Talk about ungracious in terms of AndrewR and Peter Watson’s comments!
From what I read in the excerpt above, Jack sounds like a mainstream “natural” Lib Dem to me, and I trust he will be with us for the long term.
The Labour Party w ould be a lot more appealing if indeed it was promoting democratic socialism. Spot on Mark Valladares – give the guy a break we all change and develop our views except the implausibly perfect.
Welcome Jack – hope you enjoy life as a Lib Dem and in time come to love muesli, beards and sandals
@Mark Valladeres “are you seriously saying that people can’t change their minds?”
Not at all – after all, I’ve certainly changed my mind about the Lib Dems and the party seems to have changed its mind about a few things 😉 And at a meeting as a student, I remember being impressed by a young Danny Finkelstein (even though he was across on the SDP side of the Alliance), and just look at him now.
It’s just that I find it difficult to reconcile Jack’s actions with his reasons. The first word he chooses to describe the Lib Dem party is “anti-nuclear”, not a term I would apply to the party’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change these days. Then it is “the only party that are serious about reforming the House of Lords and our voting system”, though he has just left the only party that did reform the Lords a little bit (and brought in devolution and PR in some elections). We all have a different hotchpotch of political beliefs, but if somebody chooses to blog about theirs, and LDV chooses to report it, then it seems appropriate to query or challenge it.
@Simon Shaw “Jack sounds like a mainstream “natural” Lib Dem to me”
To be honest, I’d love to know what that is. I used to think I was one but after 2010 felt I might not be.
On television and in the papers I hear the party leaders say things I cannot accept and conference speakers who I agree with entirely. Even here at LDV I agree with as many contributors as I disagree with. I dislike the notion that it’s all about being in the “centre”, since we all seem to have a different collection of left and right views that surround the centre without necessarily being in it. My gut feeling is that the Lib Dems are a party that I would like to support again, but led by people who I cannot.
We need Labour moderates. I’m not talking about uber-Blairites either. We can’t erase the SDP out of history.
As a die-hard Leftie Labourite I left and joined the LibDems because historically this Party has sought to not only defend, but to empower the vulnerable. As society as a whole dashes towards a Right of Centre agenda, I hope, pray and will work with LibDems to return the Party to its social minded roots.
Would I return to Labour, Nope! As a ‘Champagne Socialist’ I see greater hope for change with the LibDem’s albeit immensely frustrating at times.
Having read the whole article by Jack McKenna at the Speaker’s Chair website it seems he didn’t understand that the Labour party was “socialist”. He wrote, “I actively disagreed with the Labour party’s key concept: namely democratic socialism.” I wonder why he joined them in the first place.
He also comments about the Trade Union tradition of the Labour party. I have sympathy with finding the culture strange with its talk of “comrades”. However he also states he was the only one in a room of 25 members under the age of 50. He may find this will happen when he attends Liberal Democrat meetings.
He will not be alone in the Liberal Democrats with his emphasis on staying in the EU. Lots of the people who were in the SDP had this emphasis and I think that the reason why we have so many economic liberals in the party is because the EU was important enough for them to join us rather than the anti-EU Conservatives.
The mistake made in the ‘student tuition fees’ debate was having vastly improved Labour’s system, created after saying they wouldn’t introduce ‘fees’, then not calling it what it has now become which is ‘deferred graduate taxation’.
@Robert “The mistake made in the ‘student tuition fees’ debate was having vastly improved Labour’s system, created after saying they wouldn’t introduce ‘fees’, then not calling it what it has now become which is ‘deferred graduate taxation’.”
In what way is the current system more like a graduate tax than the one it replaced (and which Lib Dems opposed)? Apart from moving a few thresholds, increasing the interest rate and extending the repayment period, the repayment mechanism is pretty much the same. And how many taxes involve a repayment period (that allows for early repayment) and an interest rate?
Robert
70% of graduates are worse off under the new system. On average graduates will have to pay £8,700 more. Why is that a vast improvement? Btw you are wrong about Labour. They never said they wouldn’t introduce fees.
@Peter Watson
“In what way is the current system more like a graduate tax than the one it replaced?”
In virtually every way imaginable.
@AndrewR
“70% of graduates are worse off under the new system. On average graduates will have to pay £8,700 more. Why is that a vast improvement?”
Maybe because the 30% who are better off are overwhelmingly those who are on lower earnings, and most of the 70% who pay more are higher earners. Or are you opposed to progressive taxation?
“The mistake made in the ‘student tuition fees’ debate was having vastly improved Labour’s system, created after saying they wouldn’t introduce ‘fees’, then not calling it what it has now become which is ‘deferred graduate taxation’.”
Sorry, that won’t do at all.
Lib Dem policy was to abolish fees altogether and fund higher education from general taxation, not a graduate tax. The effect of the changes was to increase massively the percentage of funding that came from graduates, and decrease the percentage that came from general taxation.
There’s no way the party can present that as a “vast improvement” when in reality it was a huge step in the opposite direction from the one it was advocating.
“Maybe because the 30% who are better off are overwhelmingly those who are on lower earnings, and most of the 70% who pay more are higher earners. Or are you opposed to progressive taxation?”
If you as a member are saying you think the party’s policy at the last election was wrong in principle because it would have been a regressive change, that’s fair enough.
But of course the official party line is to try to disguise the fact that’s what happened is a 180 degree U turn from what was proposed in the manifesto. That’s not honest.
Simon Shaw
Ok so lets multiply fees by 10. That’s even more progressive so it must be better, right? Only an idiot would believe that the only criteria by which to judge a payment system is whether it is progressive. The point is most people are worse off and that includes a large number on modest incomes. It is also a system where a talented and hardworking person from a poor or modest background but who does well ends up paying a lot more than someone with rich parents who reaches a similar level. Is the fact that the system cements the privileges of the upper middle class an attractive feature in your view or an unfortunate by-product?
A warm welcome to Jack McKenna, the first of many more I hope. Labour are facing a summer of of demoralisation & division & I expect others to follow Jack.
And let’s not forget that whatever the current rates and thresholds may be, legally this is a debt, for which the terms of repayment can be changed unilaterally by the lender. I wouldn’t want to take on such a debt – particularly if it meant trusting politicians to do the honourable thing in the future.
“Labour are facing a summer of of demoralisation & division & I expect others to follow Jack.”
The only problem is that, as a frequent commenter on LDV who shall go nameless has just said on another thread (!):
“Our biggest problem is not the anger of The Voters but our own low morale …”
I agree with Jack – having travelled a similar journey, thinking Labour was closer to my needs but returned to the party which is closest to my ‘beliefs and principles’. I’m a LibDem party member again as I had been for decades. And having seen how other parties work (and troll) from close-up, I see there are people on this system that are here to try to destroy the LibDems from inside or outside our party by negative thinking. Some folks really believe that by being negative they can change or destroy us. They are wrong. If you are a LibDem you should show your support here. Don’t cut people down in some intellectual sport from the corners of your living room. You could be correct in your ideas but how you say it is important if you want LDVoice to reach out to LDs everywhere and give us the strength to campaign together. And if you re here from some other party – do you think we don’t see you?
In case my previous post is moderated out, I also wish Jack every good wish for his work in the LibDems.
@AndrewR
Based on your comments I’m not sure whether you actually understand how the current Student Finance System works. Could I suggest that you read up what an expert says: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes
To address each of your main points in turn:
“70% of graduates are worse off under the new system.” Yes, and most of those are higher earners. And your problem is …. ?
“30% of graduates are better off under the new system.” Those are overwhelmingly those on lower earnings, You may not think that is a good thing but I do.
“On average graduates will have to pay £8,700 more.” Yes, and that average includes quite a lot more from high earners and less from low earners. Again, what exactly is your problem?
“The point is most people are worse off and that includes a large number on modest incomes.” Would I be right in assuming that your definition of “modest incomes” would be quite a lot more than most people earn?
“It is also a system where a talented and hardworking person from a poor or modest background but who does well ends up paying a lot more than someone with rich parents who reaches a similar level.” No, the reverse is the case. Those from a poor or modest background are eligible for a significant Maintenance Grant.
“Is the fact that the system cements the privileges of the upper middle class an attractive feature in your view or an unfortunate by-product?” Nearly. The fact that the new system gets more money out of the upper middle class is an attractive feature in my view.
@Simon Shaw
“Or are you opposed to progressive taxation?”
Tuition fees are regressive though. Graduates on high incomes pay a smaller proportion of their income on repayments over their lifetime than graduates on lower incomes. I find it most peculiar that you haven’t picked up on this rather straightforward and factually unarguable point over the last four years.
@Steve
If I had said “are you opposed to a more progressive taxation system in relation to Student Finance than what was there before” would than have satisfied you? Unfortunately it is rather a mouthful.
I was responding to AndrewR when he asked why anyone should consider it a vast improvement to more to a system which takes more off higher earning graduates. My response need to be seen in that context.
@Simon Shaw “In every way imaginable”.
In the previous system (that Lib Dems opposed and criticised Labour for), students borrowed money towards maintenance and tuition. They paid it back based upon their income, and the loan was written off after a certain number of years. So perhaps you can be a bit more specific about the ways that the new system is more like a graduate tax than the old one.
A fine welcome to this young man given by the commentators above. He’s certainly welcome in this party 🙂
@Simon Shaw If you think the system is progressive, perhaps you did not read the page to which you linked.
“19. The very highest earners aren’t the very highest payers”
Equally, elsewhere (http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/should-i-get-student-loan) Martin Lewis points out:
“SCENARIO 3: YOU PAY THE FEES, YOUR CHILD EARNS BIG BUCKS
RESULT: YOU GAIN UP TO £26,000”
So someone with with money behind them and ahead of them (like a Clegg or a Cameron, perhaps) can do well out of the current system.
Also, the maintenance part of the loan is means tested, so those from families with lower incomes can borrow and repay more (in real terms because of an increased interest rate that exceeds RPI and is now applied when the money is borrowed).
None of this sounds progressive or like a graduate tax to me.
It still seems strange hearing Lib Dems defend this system. Before the election we were the only party opposed to fees and we accused Labour and Conservatives of planning to do after the election exactly what Lib Dems went on to do themselves in spite of their pledges (and in spite of the vitriol heaped on to Labour over their own broken promises on this issue). The coalition agreement at least allowed Lib Dems to abstain (though would still be breaking their pledges). The complete volte-face by parts of the party even makes a nonsense of the argument that we’re a minority partner so could not get what we want. What should Laws put into the next manifesto about this?
@Peter Watson
“It still seems strange hearing Lib Dems defend this system.”
On the contrary it is strange hearing Lib Dems defend a policy which was all about buying the votes of middle class (and even some of AndrewR’s “privileged upper middle class”) voters using, to a large extent, taxes raised from those who earn a lot less than many graduates.
As to whether it is more progressive than the previous system, that’s certainly what the IFS say – see https://www.libdemvoice.org/tuition-fees-new-ifs-publication-says-new-system-substantially-more-progressive-29218.html
Finally, as to whether it is more like a graduate tax, this is what Martin Lewis says: “Labour and student activists tend to want a graduate tax. In reality, that’s close to what we have now, as the repayments are more like a tax than a loan.” See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/loans/9558187/Martin-Lewis-Its-time-to-stop-calling-student-loans-debts.html
Simon Shaw
If you the look at the IFS distributional analysis it’s clear that though 27% gain under the new system they don’t gain much whereas those on middling incomes get hammered. You keep referring to the 70% who pay more as ‘higher earners’. But they aren’t all exactly high earners are they? After all by definition a significant chunk of them are earning below the average graduate wage. Is it a vast improvement that large numbers of graduates on a less than average wage are paying thousands more under the new system?
And although the IFS tells us that the new system is more progressive if you look at graduate earnings they also tells us it is regressive if you look at parental income. By decile of parental income graduates from the poorest 30% of households pay back more than under the previous system. Is that a vast improvement in your view?
As Peter Watson points out your own link undermines one of your arguments. Those who pay upfront pay back significantly less than other high earners. Of course in the real world the ones making the upfront payments will be the rich parents not the graduate. The child of the millionaire will pay nothing whereas the child of the cleaner who rises to the top will pay more than the total cost of their education. Is that a vast improvement?
@AndrewR
“The child of the millionaire will pay nothing whereas the child of the cleaner who rises to the top will pay more than the total cost of their education. Is that a vast improvement?”
And the child of the millionaire may well be given some or all of the cost of a house or a car and may well inherit hundreds of thousands of ££s, none of which the child of a cleaner is likely to be given. Don’t you think you are missing the bigger picture?
Incidentally, would I assume that the reason why graduates from the poorest 30% of households by parental income pay back more than under the previous system is that a good proportion of higher earning graduates come from poor backgrounds? In which case it is hardly statistically surprising. And even though many of them end up becoming among the highest earners those students from poorer backgrounds will still have received a significant non-repayable Maintenance Grant.
Why is that not a vast improvement in your view?
Simon Shaw
Of course the child of the millionaire will enjoy other advantages but that doesn’t mean we should be handing them another one does it? And no I don’t regard it as an improvement that those from the poorest families will pay more on average than under .previous system. Oh, and don’t get me wrong I don’t support the previous system either. I support the Lib Dems 2010 policy.
@AndrewR
Just to point out that “we” are not handing them another advantage. It is their parents who are doing that. If you follow the logic of your stance you end up in a fairly illiberal position.
On your other point, as those from the poorest families who end up on only average or below average salaries pay LESS than under the previous system that has to be a massive improvement, surely? I cannot understand why you don’t see that.
@Andrew R
“I support the Lib Dems 2010 policy”
So you’d like higher taxes for everybody then, including those who haven’t been to university?
The money’s got to come from somewhere. So where is it exactly. Or is this just one of the things that’s going to be paid for by the fabled magic money tree?
Simon Shaw
Imposing a special tax on people for not having rich parents is handing an advantage to the children of the rich. And no those from the poorest families on average salaries (and below) pay more not less under the new system.
RC
Are you saying the party was lying when it claimed the the 2010 policy was fully costed? The current fees policy will cost more over the lifetime of this parliament than the previous system. Over the long term who knows? Everybody benefits from a well-educated workforce and a progressive tax system means it will overwhelmingly be graduates that pay for it. Pouring scorn on people for supporting the policy you got elected on is not a great look if you hope to be elected again.
Wow , thanks to everyone welcoming me and to all those who are, let’s say less than enthusiastic, I hope to prove you wrong. Just some points i want to address:
1. I’ll never be a Tory, at no point do I stray right of the political signpost.
2. I wasn’t shocked that the trade unions are involved in the Labour Party, but I was surprised but just how involved they are. I like how the Lib Dems arn’t funded by big business or trade unions.
3. Yes the coalition has done things i disagree with but this is far outnumbered by the things Lib Dems have done/blocked that I do agree with.
4. When I said they were anti-nuclear I was referring to Trident, I think we all have to accept that Nuclear is part of a low carbon future.
5. The Lib Dems didn’t reform the House of Lords because Labour wouldn’t support them.
I hop this answers some questions, however I know for many it won’t as I’ve betrayed my “comrades” and joined the evil Lib Dems. We all make decisions out of nativity and lack of knowledge for me that was joining Labour. Now I’m putting it right by joining the Lib Dems .
@RC
It’s funny how we don’t fret about where the money is to come from when we talk about school education, or even 16-18 education. We regard it as a good investment for society. Why is HE different? Back in the day when HE was funded by general taxation, did the general taxpayer really get nothing in return – was it all just a burden?
@Simon
The current system does have some advantages for certain people but of course you oversell it. For most, the current system means a much larger debt, attracting 3% real interest per annum (the previous system was interest-free in real terms), paid off over a longer period of time. The only way you can actually avoid having to pay back this debt is to fail so badly in your career that you earn low wages for thirty years. This isn’t nearly as good a deal as you’re trying to make out.
I very much agree with Stuart Mitchell’s words, but sympathise too with Simon Shaw, who is trying to put forward the case that the tuition fees policy is the nearest workable system to a graduate tax. A tax that apparently Labour, Lib Dems and the NUS support.
My biggest gripe is with the Party leadership who agreed with the new policy and then leave it to the likes of Simon Shaw to advocate its redeemable features. Clegg, Cable, Alexander and other Lib Dems in parliament have not defended a policy that belongs to them more than to anyone else; by default they have let this issue become an albatross that hangs on the party and allows commentators who claim to be independent, such as Paxman to label Liberal Democrats as liars.
None of this should go as unchallenged in the way it does, but with due respect to Simon Shaw, his voice is hardly a ripple on the political scene. With the election not much more than a year away, those at the top should be urgently pressing the case for their policy. Not to do so, is a dereliction of obligations to those who support and have supported Liberal Democrats.
@Stuart Mitchell
“For most, the current system means a much larger debt, attracting 3% real interest per annum (the previous system was interest-free in real terms), paid off over a longer period of time.”
Indeed. That’s the whole point of the new Student Finance system.
“The only way you can actually avoid having to pay back this debt is to fail so badly in your career that you earn low wages for thirty years.”
And apparently a “mere” 30% of graduates fail this badly (as you put it). I see that issue as one of the best aspects of the new system.
I think you are overselling the negatives.
@Simon Shaw
“Indeed. That’s the whole point of the new Student Finance system.”
Well quite, and it’s not such a good deal, is it? Few people would regard larger debts with higher interest as a good deal, even if paid over a longer term. That’s why most of us, if free to choose, would much rather pay £500 for a TV from Amazon than £1,000 for the same TV at places like Bright House (with “low weekly payments”).
“And apparently a ‘mere’ 30% of graduates fail this badly”
Where exactly does this 30% figure come from? It’s being bandied about a lot here (and I appreciate you were not the first) but if someone mentioned the source, I missed it.
Given that not one single graduate has paid a penny back under the new scheme, and that key parameters (i.e. the 9% rate and £21,000 threshold) can be changed at will by this or any future government, why should I give any credence to your projections?
“I very much agree with Stuart Mitchell’s words, but sympathise too with Simon Shaw, who is trying to put forward the case that the tuition fees policy is the nearest workable system to a graduate tax. A tax that apparently Labour, Lib Dems and the NUS support.”
Apparently it can’t be said too often – Lib Dem policy was not (and presumably in theory still is not) to have a graduate tax, but to fund higher education through general taxation.
@Jack McKenna, I’d like to extend another welcome to you! I have no doubt the party will do other things that will disappoint and anger you, but you are quite right to point out something that I wish more of the general public would think about: “if we refuse to vote or join parties because of what they’ve done in the past how many of us would ever be a member or a voter? ” As well doing things you find difficult, I’m sure you’ll also find many, many party members that make you proud to have joined.
All political parties include a mixture of people and ours – thankfully – is no exception. Sometimes those you don’t agree with will win policy debates, and other times they won’t. I like that the party includes a bunch of people with very different views.
I strongly recommend you come along to a national conference if you can. You’re too late now to sign up at the early bird rate, but our next one is the first weekend of March. They really are great fun, and for someone interested in politics as a way of changing society for the better, really inspiring. They’re also a great way for seeing the diversity of opinion and expertise and passion in the party. I love listening to policy debates about subjects I don’t know much about, and hearing really dedicated people argue things out.
I wish you all the best!
@Johnathan Brown.
Thanks mate! I love the vibrance of opinion in the Lib Dems and the fact that we as members get a very real say in the future of the party.
Stuart Mitchell: are you sure that the threshold and repayment terms can be changed as easily as you say. I have seen a number of claims to this effect, and thought that the courts would reject any retrospective terms (unless this is made clear in the terms). Surely the government agency would be found guilty of misselling.
Can you justify your claims?
If you mean that the scheme can be changed for students in the future, then of course you are right, which is how we got to here in the first place.
@amalric I joined labour out of nativity.
Martin
They wouldn’t be found guilty of misselling because they say this on their website:
“When you take out a student loan, you’ll sign adeclaration form which states that you’ve read and understood the guide to the terms and conditions.You must agree to repay your loan in line with the regulations that apply at the time the repaymentsare due, subject to the regulations being amended from time to time.
…
The conditions for repaying Income Contingent Loans are included in the following regulations (which may be replaced by later regulations).”
http://www.sfengland.slc.co.uk/media/666045/sfe_t_c_guide_1415_d.pdf
@AndrewR , Peter Watson. Certainly won’t be Tory. Would a soon to be Tory disagree with the things I named in the article, such as fracking and the bedroom tax. To name just two.
@Jack McKenna “I joined labour out of nativity.”
A political party is for life, not just for Christmas.
A Christmas party, however …
@Stuart Mitchell “Where exactly does this 30% figure come from?”
I think the figure is actually 27%, from a paper which is behind a paywall but summarised here:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6346
Chris “subject to the regulations being amended from time to time”, I think the banks tried something like that and it did not go down well. I would have thought that phrase to be far too open ended to escape judicial review. Nevertheless a worrying clause to put a signature to.
@Jack McKenna
Apologies. In retrospect it was a cheap shot and not as funny to other people as it was in my mind.
@Stuart Mitchell, Peter Watson
I was looking at a slightly earlier IFS report where the figure is actually 29%. However, this figure is predicated on the payment threshold of the old system remaining the same. If the threshold had risen in line with inflation the IFS calculated that those who would benefit under the new system was more like 22%. Perhaps I should have said this earlier but I thought I’d just stick to the figures that I’ve seen bandied about by supporters of the system rather than get into a fight over the figures.
@AndrewR “I thought I’d just stick to the figures that I’ve seen bandied about by supporters of the system rather than get into a fight over the figures.”
I think there are a number of separate issues that get conflated.
The first is simply whether or not the current system better than the old one. Maybe it is, maybe it is not. Only the Labour Party defended the previous system at the time and Lib Dems attacked them for it. In many ways all that the Coalition has done is tinker with a few numbers in a scheme which is broadly the same as the old one (fees up, repayment thresholds up, interest rates up, repayment period up). When Lib Dems debate these figures it feels like an attempt to distract from the fact that the party’s position on this policy has been a mess.
Other issues are vital, and are not about these figures.
Is the current system what Lib Dems supported up to May 2010, and is the current system what Lib Dems support now?
What will be the party’s position in 2015 and beyond?
My impression is that the current system is the antithesis of what the Lib Dems supported before the general election but is what many appear to support now. I think this volte-face will be a real problem in the 2015 election regardless of the financial details because it provides ammunition to opponents (even those who support the new scheme) about trust (broken pledges) and competence (can the old and the new policy both be right?). In this context it chills me to think that the parliamentary Lib Dems might be keen on the Lobbying Bill / ‘gagging law’ in order to restrict the freedom of the NUS to campaign on this.
@Stuart Mitchell
You claim that “key parameters (i.e. the 9% rate and £21,000 threshold) can be changed at will by this or any future government”. That’s not true.
When people refer to “regulations” in this context they mean Statutory Instruments, i.e. (secondary) legislation. Like all legislation that means the rules cannot be changed “at will” by the government of the day. Parliament will have its say, either through an affirmative or negative resolution.
@Peter Watson
“What will be the party’s position in 2015 and beyond?”
It is absolutely clear to me what the Party’s position should be in 2015, but what is your view?
As someone who works in HE, what I haven’t seen mentioned in the comments is the chaos the new system has unleashed on the HE system; students have seen fees rise threefold, the system is costing the government more, both upfront and in the long run BUT somehow barely an extra penny is going into the HE institutes who are having to jump through all sorts of expensive hoops to comply with the new regime. In fact a number of the less-fashionable HEI are suffering severe cuts and may go out of business altogether.
Now a number of Tories will be cracking open the champagne when all these “jumped-up former polys” go under but the LDs shouldn’t be the same as these are exactly the sorts of HEI which are doing the best at educating students from low-income and minority backgrounds and mature students.
Furthermore with predictions of the ultimate RAB charge (i.e the amount of money borrowed which the government will have to write-off) have already risen from its original assumption of 30% to near 40% ,only a couple of years in and likely to go higher, there is already a large hole opening up in the system’s finances, a hole which will have to be filled somehow either from the government or, more likely, by retroactively changing the terms of the students’ loans, a strong possibility I’ve seen a number of commentators dismiss out of hand.
We’ve already seen the current BIS budget deficit result in the axing of the National Studentship Programme (£100m) and the Student Opportunity Fund (£327m), two programmes both aimed at increasing student mobility and two of the sugar lumps which were supposed to sweeten the deal for the LDs, so we are already seeing the financial black-hole causing the details of the system be changed to the detriment of the students.
It’s been a quadruple disaster; a disaster for the students, a disaster for the HEIs, a disaster for the tax-payer and certainly a disaster for the LDs poll ratings and every time a high-profile LD hails what a great success breaking that electoral pledge has been you lose another 100 votes from people working at the HE coalface.
@ Jack McKenna Thank you for replying and I hope you become active on libdemvoice. Also as I haven’t done before (not knowing if you knew of this site) – welcome to the Liberal Democrats. I would also like Jonathan Brown recommend that you go to Federal Conference (the best debates are the ones with amendments that have not been agreed by the movers and where we have a real debate). Also the fringe at Federal Conference is important for exchanging ideas and having fun! Then there is the free training. You should contact your Local Party Secretary to discover if all the representatives were elected at the AGM and if not ask the Executive to temporary appoint you. If they have all been elected then try to discover if they are all going and if not ask the Executive to temporary appoint you. Good luck and enjoy yourself.
For now, as I have asserted above, it is really for those in government and at the top of the party to vigorously defend their decisions (they cannot just leave it activists such as Simon Shaw), however the long term view on student fees will be difficult to establish.
I am not even so sure what the pre 2010 position was. Was a graduate tax supported or not? Probably not officially, but voiced by many of those who agreed to the new system.
I do not know how accurate passing through‘s figures are, but I have always feared that the policy was driven by a desire to move the goal posts and finesse a large item of spending off the government books rather than save anything significant.
Chris’s comment about changing the conditions would have been even more of a concern if it had been possible to bring in a graduate tax as such a tax could be altered without challenge at any point by a Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot, though, see how anyone can continue to propose a graduate tax, as Labour apparently do; it really would be unworkable unless linked to the grants given, in which case, once you have tried to tinker with how it would work, you end up with the current system.
@Martin “I am not even so sure what the pre 2010 position was.”
As Chris points out above, “Lib Dem policy was to abolish fees altogether and fund higher education from general taxation, not a graduate tax.”
From the 2010 manifesto, “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 tables at the back of the manifesto indicate that this was to be funded through general taxation and savings rather than a specific graduate tax.
@Simon Shaw “It is absolutely clear to me what the Party’s position should be in 2015, but what is your view?”
It depends upon the desired outcome for the Lib Dems.
The party’s position before May 2010 was pretty clear.
From the 2010 manifesto, “We will: 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.”
Obviously the party could not form a majority government to implement its policies, but the NUS pledge signed and publicised by every Lib Dem candidate stated, “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative”.
And then, during the election campaign on a visity to Cambridge University, Nick Clegg is reported as saying,
“Labour and the Conservatives have been trying to keep tuition fees out of this election campaign. It’s because they don’t want to come clean with you about what they’re planning. Despite the huge financial strain fees already place on Britain’s young people, it is clear both Labour and the Conservatives want to lift the cap on fees. If fees rise to £7,000 a year, as many rumours suggest they would, within five years some students will be leaving university up to £44,000 in debt. That would be a disaster. If we have learnt one thing from the economic crisis, it is that you can’t build a future on debt. The Liberal Democrats are different. Not only will we oppose any raising of the cap, we will scrap tuition fees for good, including for part-time students. We can’t do it overnight, but we can start straight away with students in their first year – that way means anyone at university this autumn will have their debt cut by at least £3,000. Students can make the difference in countless seats in this election. Use your vote to block those unfair tuition fees and get them scrapped once and for all.” (http://www.nus.org.uk/en/news/nus-seeks-urgent-clarification-from-lib-dems-over-top-up-fees-promises/)
I don’t think it is possible to reconcile support for the new system with the previous (still current?) policy, and the change can be used by opponents to make the party look dishonest and/or incompetent. I think that the party should either say it was wrong in 2010 or that the new fees system is wrong but could not be stopped, but perhaps too much support has been given by Lib Dems to the new system for the latter approach to sound credible. I suspect that the best way forward for the party is to bite the bullet, weather the storm, etc. and simply disown the previous policy and embrace the new system as part of a new strategy for further education funding. This will not win my vote back but as I said at the top, that might not be a desired outcome.
“I suspect that the best way forward for the party is to bite the bullet, weather the storm, etc. and simply disown the previous policy and embrace the new system as part of a new strategy for further education funding.”
But of course what we know will happen is that the party will simply try to gloss the whole thing over by confusing the distinction between party policy and the pledge, then waffling on about a minority party in a coalition having to accept compromise, and finally saying how progressive the new system is. None of which will really be any answer to someone who asks “Since you broke a written promise before, why should we believe anything you say now?”
Peter Watson: you are obviously right that there is a problem and this problem is not made any easier by Nick Clegg coming out with an apology of sorts. There really is no option between now and the election other than for Nick Clegg and others responsible for the new student fees system to vigorously defend that which they have agreed to. They are not doing this and it compromises everyone who wish to defend the Lib Dem party.
Before the 2010 election there certainly was discussion about a graduate tax. Amongst the Lib Dem leadership, this may have partly been an attempt to row back on the manifesto statement.
Clearly any policy for the future has to take account of where we are now, but how? There is a pressing need for discussion else the manifesto will have to include a blank page. The longer this is left the worse it will be.
“Chris’s comment about changing the conditions would have been even more of a concern if it had been possible to bring in a graduate tax as such a tax could be altered without challenge at any point by a Chancellor of the Exchequer.”
Of course that would be another disadvantage of a graduate tax, seen from the point of view of the graduate.
But what would give me more concern about a loan is the likelihood of it being privatised in the future. (I was going to write ‘possibility’, but the process of privatising pre-2012 student loans is already well under way. Perhaps ‘near-certainty’ would be more appropriate.)
Any word on when the business is done and you get your membership card? I know this may sound trivial but I like to get things organised before I move to the next step.
Simon Shaw’ would you please spell out in a sentence or two your understanding of what you meant when you wrote “Parliament will have its say, either through an affirmative or negative resolution.”?
I am not sure if you mis-understand the procedure or if you are just trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Simon Shaw 10th Feb ’14 – 1:11am
@Stuart Mitchell
You claim that “key parameters (i.e. the 9% rate and £21,000 threshold) can be changed at will by this or any future government”. That’s not true.
When people refer to “regulations” in this context they mean Statutory Instruments, i.e. (secondary) legislation. Like all legislation that means the rules cannot be changed “at will” by the government of the day. Parliament will have its say, either through an affirmative or negative resolution.
@Simon Shaw
“Parliament will have its say, either through an affirmative or negative resolution.”
That is not correct. Parliament is guaranteed a say only on statutory instruments subject to affirmative procedure. The student loan regulations are subject to negative procedure, which means that the chances of Parliament ever having a say are remote. The House of Commons has not annulled a statutory instrument in this way since 1979 – many tens of thousands have been enacted unchallenged since, so for all practical purposes, the government knows that it can change crucial terms of the loans (such as the repayment rate and threshold) whenever it likes.
@Jack McKenna, I don’t know how much things will have changed (I joined during the 2010 election campaign), but I think it can take a little while to get all your membership stuff. That said, as long as you’ve got your membership number and you’re in contact with other Lib Dems (such as through this blog), you are already about 90% there.
The only real questions are how much you want to get involved in local action with your local party and how much you want to get involved with regional and national party events.
In my experience, the former varies hugely. Some local parties are next to death; others are very active. All it really takes is for you to want to campaign to get yourself elected, or get someone else elected, regardless of where you start. But I think it’s much easier to join in an active campaigning group than try to start something almost from scratch.
Regional and national things are probably more reliable. By their very nature you’re only going to meet the most committed there (which is not to say that plenty of committed people can’t or won’t be there, but the uncommitted certainly won’t be). They are a lot of fun, they’re a better way of interacting with big political issues which most people think of when they think about ‘politics’. But they are of course limited in that they are not a replacement for everyday campaigning in your community, which is what politics for all parties really ought to be about, and what for Lib Dems is a central point of ideology – and given our lack of safe seats and wealthy donors – a necessity.
My recommendation is not to wait for your membership pack to arrive (they, along with plastic membership cards, are a relatively recent invention), but to find out and contact your local party. And, as much as I fear this may come across as negative, be prepared to have unanswered messages, etc. Not that this is an excuse, but I’m being realistic: people are busy, sidetracked, disorganised and often just not expecting new members. But keep trying. Find _someone_ in your local party who will jump on your enthusiasm. Once you’ve done that, it’ll get easier to find out who else in the party is active. If you tell us where you are, one of us might even be able to suggest someone for you to get in touch with.
Final thing for now: the deadline has passed for local parties to select or change their voting reps, so don’t worry about that now. Don’t forget about it either, because you need to get it changed in plenty of time to be able to vote at the next party conference in the Autumn. But also don’t let that put you off going to the Spring Conference if you can.
@Stuart Mitchell
“Parliament is guaranteed a say only on statutory instruments subject to affirmative procedure. The student loan regulations are subject to negative procedure, which means that the chances of Parliament ever having a say are remote. The House of Commons has not annulled a statutory instrument in this way since 1979 – many tens of thousands have been enacted unchallenged since.”
Why have those “tens of thousands have been enacted unchallenged”? Was it perhaps, that they were all non-controversial? Incidentally, are you sure there were “tens of thousands”. I read that they were SIs subject to the negative resolution are few and far between.
Do you think a proposal to (say) double the interest rathe on Student Loans would be “non-controversial”?
If you think it would be EXTREMELY controversial (as I would), then why do you think that Parliament (opposition members in particular) would let it go through unchallenged?
According to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/l07.pdf the negative procedure for Statutory Instruments is this:
Such instruments become law unless there is an objection from the House
(i) The instrument is laid in draft and cannot be made if the draft is disapproved within 40 days (draft instruments subject to the negative resolution are few and far between).
(ii) The instrument is laid after making, subject to annulment if a motion to annul (known as a ‘prayer’) is passed within 40 days.
@Peter Watson
“I suspect that the best way forward for the party is to bite the bullet, weather the storm, etc. and simply disown the previous policy and embrace the new system as part of a new strategy for further education funding.”
On that I totally agree with you. To me it is a complete no-brainer.
@ Jack McKenna As you do not have your membership card yet you could phone HQ on 020 722 7999 and speak to Membership Services hopefully they can give you your membership number. When speaking to Membership Services ask for the contact name and their phone number as they should be prepared to give you other Local Party contacts like Secretary and chief campaigners. (Personally I was on the Local Party Executive Committee within a few months of my first Local Party contact, but I recognise that committee work is not for everyone [I like taking part in the decision making process]).
@ Jonathan Brown In the past I remember changing someone’s’ status from observer to voting representative at conference so they became a substitute rep for that conference only. I don’t understand why this can’t still be done. The deadline for AGM’s has passed but if not enough people were elected as reps I don’t believe there is any deadline for filling these vacancies. However I expect whether it can happen before Conference depends on the speed of the Local Party and how often they chase the changes.
At our last conference this was proposed, “The current system of Higher Education funding represents the best deal for students and taxpayers currently available. Further, that alternatives such as a Graduate Tax have a number of obvious failings, which would place an additional burden on low and middle income students and graduates, as well as a substantial extra cost to the state.”
Instead the following was agreed, “Conference believes in the principle that education should be free at the point of use. … The current system of Higher Education funding is preferable to the funding system of the last Labour Government. We call for a cross-party Commission to look at Adult Further Education during the next Parliament, including:
a) Addressing funding by the individual, employer and the state,
b) …
c) ‘Credit cloud’ frameworks that bring together an individual’s wide range of learning and qualifications based on the Scottish system of Credit Qualification Framework.”
We will “review within the next Parliament … the current system of higher education finance, which will examine its impact on access, participation and quality and consider both the pressure on the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement from unpaid loans and progress made on widening and increasing participation with a view to reforming the system to address these challenges if possible or if necessary for fees to be eliminated in a feasible and cost effective way, and there should be no increase in the fee cap level pending the outcome of the review.”
I hope this helps explain the current Lib Dem position.
Well done. Stuart Mitchell 10th Feb ’14 – 6:16pm
You seem to have extracted something like an acknowledgement from Simon that he might have been wrong. That is quite an achievement!
Of course it is only something like an acknowledgement. I anticipate a further posting from him setting out how he was not trying to mislead in his original reference to negative and affirmative resolutions. But he is well practiced at shifting goalposts. Maybe he was a badger in a previous life?
@Amalric “I hope this helps explain the current Lib Dem position.”
Sadly it looks like the current Lib Dem position is to be still scratching around looking for a future position, and the difference between the proposal and the agreed motion suggests that there is still division within the party.
All three parties are pretty much indistinguishable from each other on this now, but the Lib Dems have managed to shoot themselves in both feet so spectacularly that nobody else remembers Labour’s own broken promises about top-up fees, and issues of trust cast a shadow over every utterance by senior Lib Dems.
@JohnTilley
“Well done. Stuart Mitchell 10th Feb ’14 – 6:16pm
You seem to have extracted something like an acknowledgement from Simon that he might have been wrong. That is quite an achievement!”
Of course there are all sorts of things on which I might be wrong, or am most definitely wrong, but this is not one where I “acknowledged” that.
Incidentally, JohnTilley, I am not at all happy that you keep misrepresenting what I say. For example you recently alleged that I had described Wythenshawe as “affluent and middle class”, when in fact I had said no such thing. You might like to correct that error – see https://www.libdemvoice.org/aldcs-byelection-roundup-midlands-win-and-a-bad-month-for-tories-and-snp-38118.html#comments
Turning back to this issue, Stuart said “the chances of Parliament ever having a say (on a negative resolution) are remote.” I explained why I thought he was wrong. Because we are talking about fairly obscure parliamentary procedures, of course I may be wrong, but I don’t think I am. I would certainly welcome comments as to how Statutory Instrument approval procedures actually work on practice.
As you implied, at 10th Feb ’14 – 4:51pm, that you were some sort of expert, perhaps you could add your own explanation.
@Simon Shaw
“Of course there are all sorts of things on which I might be wrong, or am most definitely wrong, but this is not one where I ‘acknowledged’ that.”
It should have been.
You said, ” Like all legislation… Parliament will have its say, either through an affirmative or negative resolution.”
But the document you provided a link to makes it clear that this is not so :-
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/l07.pdf
I suggest you read page 4 in full.
As for your claim that these kinds of statutory instruments are “few and far between”, the latest official list (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsilist/section-c.htm) shows there have been nearly a hundred of them since December 13 – that represents an average of nearly 20 a week, taking the three week Christmas break in to account.
There’s a very good reason why none of these SI’s has been annulled by the Commons since 1979. While it may be technically feasible, in practical terms it’s virtually impossible.
Just to remind you of my original point – clearly, the government can change the terms of these loans very easily indeed, so what use are your projections? And where do you get that 30% figure from – other posters (who believe they know the source) all report a lower figure.
Simon Shaw 11th Feb ’14 – 8:39am
I am of course delighted to be able to apologise to Simon. After all, I don’t want to be thrown out of the party for failing to apologise, there is far too much of that sort of thing going on at the moment.
In fact, if it makes Simon Shaw feel better, I will happily say that he is always right and the rest of us are always wrong.
He does not live in a posh ward in Southport with two golf courses. He lives in a ward that is right next door to two golf courses. That nitpicking point makes a world of difference to Simon, it might be lost on the rest of us, but it’s important to him.
Just as important to Simon are his curious linguistic acrobatics on secondary legislation in this thread. His error has been very patiently pointed out to him by Stuart Mitchell 11th Feb ’14 – 7:41pm . Simon Shaw will no doubt want to have the last word and I anticipate him posting yet another comment. I fear thatnhe sometimes loses sight of the main topic and gets rather bogged down in trying to catch people out on technicalities, but that is up to him.
Can I nominate Stuart Mitchell as ‘ Liberal of the month ‘ for his amazing tolerance and patience ?
The above posts re. Student Fees make impressive reading, with detailed data and strongly-held opinions being expressed. However, the LibDems’ “Fees problem” stems from a very straightforward train of events that surely can be agreed upon by all. In 2010 the LibDem Party went into a General Election with an extremely strong commitment to abolish HE student fees. After the election and as part of government the Party came to support a policy of increasing the fees it had previously sought (and promised) to abolish. Result; a problem, see above!
@Stuart Mitchell
“But the document you provided a link to makes it clear that this is not so :-
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/l07.pdf“
I think it makes it clear it is so. I genuinely do not understand the point you are making. Could you explain to me why you don’t think Parliament has a say even when it is the negative resolution process. I thought that Parliamentary document explained precisely how it works.
“As for your claim that these kinds of statutory instruments are “few and far between”, the latest official list (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsilist/section-c.htm) shows there have been nearly a hundred of them since December 13″
I was merely quoting direct from the Parliamentary document I linked to which says “draft instruments subject to the negative resolution are few and far between”. If that is untrue, then someone meeds to tell Parliament.
“There’s a very good reason why none of these SI’s has been annulled by the Commons since 1979. While it may be technically feasible, in practical terms it’s virtually impossible.”
But why is it “virtually impossible”? I thought that Parliamentary document very clearly laid out the procedure by which it is done.
“clearly, the government can change the terms of these loans very easily indeed”
But only if Parliament lets it.
“And where do you get that 30% figure from – other posters (who believe they know the source) all report a lower figure.”
At least one other poster doesn’t. I was merely using statistics quoted earlier by another poster
@JohnTilley
“I am of course delighted to be able to apologise to Simon.”
Good – why don’t you just leave it at that? Some sort of character defect?
“He does not live in a posh ward in Southport with two golf courses.”
Approximately 40% of Dukes Ward, the “posh” ward you are referring to (and represented by my colleague Tony Dawson) is amongst the most deprived in the whole of Southport. So while it contains some of the most affluent areas in Southport (near the golf courses you seem obsessed with), overall it is the worst of the 7 wards in Southport in terms of Index of Multiple Deprivation. But of course you were unaware of that.
When I said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing you really would have done well to listen to me.
@Simon
“Could you explain to me why you don’t think Parliament has a say even when it is the negative resolution process.”
Go and read page 4 as I suggested. Then tell me: if MPs don’t like a particular SI and ask to vote on it, but they are told there is no Parliamentary time available for them to do so (as page 4 makes very clear will happen in many cases), then in exactly what sense has Parliament “had its say”?
Further, considering that these kinds of SI are currently being put out by the government at the rate of nearly 20 a week, how many of them do you really think time would be found for, even if MPs asked for it?
“I was merely quoting direct from the Parliamentary document I linked to which says ‘draft instruments subject to the negative resolution are few and far between’.”
You missed the significance of the word DRAFT. SIs subject to negative resolution are either put in to law the moment they are published, or else they are published in draft form, meaning that they do not come in to force until 40 days later. All your quote is saying is that the vast majority of these SIs fall in to the former category rather than the latter – it is NOT saying that SIs subject to negative resolution are few and far between!
If you read the document carefully, you will see that what I just told you is correct and that you made a mistake. Now’s your big chance to prove John Tilley wrong and show that you are in fact capable of acknowledging when you’ve screwed up.
@Johnathan Brown
Thanks again! The Lib Dems will always do wellh as long as were full of helpful people like you.
@Stuart Mitchell
“Simon Shaw: “Could you explain to me why you don’t think Parliament has a say even when it is the negative resolution process.”
Go and read page 4 as I suggested. Then tell me: if MPs don’t like a particular SI and ask to vote on it, but they are told there is no Parliamentary time available for them to do so (as page 4 makes very clear will happen in many cases), then in exactly what sense has Parliament “had its say”?”
I did read it and it says this: “A motion put down by the Official Opposition will often be accommodated although
there is no absolute certainty of this.” Does that answer your point?
I would completely accept that an individual backbench MP would have minimal chance of success in the negative resolution procedure, but I think page 4 makes clear how the Official Opposition will be able to ensure that MPs have a chance to vote on it.
You will note that previously I said:
“Do you think a proposal to (say) double the interest rate on Student Loans would be “non-controversial”?
If you think it would be EXTREMELY controversial (as I would), then why do you think that Parliament (opposition members in particular) would let it go through unchallenged?”
Can you see what I am saying?
.
@Stuart Mitchell
“Simon Shaw: “I was merely quoting direct from the Parliamentary document I linked to which says ‘draft instruments subject to the negative resolution are few and far between’.”
You missed the significance of the word DRAFT. SIs subject to negative resolution are either put in to law the moment they are published, or else they are published in draft form, meaning that they do not come in to force until 40 days later. All your quote is saying is that the vast majority of these SIs fall in to the former category rather than the latter – it is NOT saying that SIs subject to negative resolution are few and far between!”
On rereading this I think you are absolutely correct on this particular point. There is an emphasis on the word DRAFT which I had not appreciated. So the “few and far between” comment appears to relate to the Draft type of Negative Resolution, rather than the “Non-Draft” type. Sorry about that.
Simon Shaw says sorry ! It took him seven separate comments for him to get there !
JohnTilley 10th Feb ’14 – 4:51pm
Simon Shaw’ would you please spell out in a sentence or two your understanding of what you meant when you wrote “Parliament will have its say, either through an affirmative or negative resolution.”?
I am not sure if you mis-understand the procedure or if you are just trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Simon Shaw 12th Feb ’14 – 11:30pm
@Stuart Mitchell
On rereading this I think you are absolutely correct on this particular point. ….. …….. …. Sorry about that.
“the Official Opposition will be able to ensure”
Sorry Simon, you’re still not quite getting it – the quote you supplied is very explicit that this is NOT ensured.
“Do you think a proposal to (say) double the interest rate on Student Loans would be ‘non-controversial'”?
Well, I’d say the decision to increase the real interest rate from zero to 3% was controversial enough, but sailed through unhindered.
Anyway, the government does not have to “double” the interest rate to make the loans significantly more expensive. As Albert Einstein sez, compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe.
@JohnTilley
“Simon Shaw says sorry ! It took him seven separate comments for him to get there !”
Sorry to disappoint you, but the apology was nothing to do with what you were talking about – as well you know.
What is that now? Three times that you have misrepresented what I have said. When are you going to say sorry?
@Stuart Mitchell
“Well, I’d say the decision to increase the real interest rate from zero to 3% was controversial enough, but sailed through unhindered.”
What does “sailed through unhindered” mean?
1. Did the Official Opposition decide (perhaps for tactical reasons) NOT to seek to annul it?
2. Did the Official Opposition seek to annul it, but were unable to secure the necessary parliamentary time?
2. Did the Official Opposition seek to annul it, and were simply defeated in the vote?
@Simon Shaw
“What does ‘sailed through unhindered’ mean?”
It means students are now charged a 3% real interest rate where previously it was zero.
I can’t be bothered to look up the exact circumstances in which this particular SI sailed through unhindered (like every other one since 1979), but if you haven’t got the message now that these things tend to get through without trouble, I don’t think you ever will.
@Stuart Mitchell
“I can’t be bothered to look up the exact circumstances in which this particular SI sailed through unhindered (like every other one since 1979), but if you haven’t got the message now that these things tend to get through without trouble, I don’t think you ever will.”
I’m sure that most of them, even 99% of them, go through “without trouble”, but wouldn’t that be because they are totally non-controversial? For example, in this area, if I may manufacture an example, there might be an SI to amend the requirement for (say) 6 monthly loan statements to annual loan statements – it really is of no great significance. In that case I would accept that Parliament has no real prospect of “hindering” a negative resolution SI, as the Official Opposition are unlikely to squander any of their parliamentary time on such a trivial matter.
Just as a reminder, this all relates back to a claim above, to which I responded as follows: You claim that “key parameters (i.e. the 9% rate and £21,000 threshold) can be changed at will by this or any future government”. That’s not true.
I stand by what I said there. It’s probably the “at will” which I consider most misleading.
Stuart Mitchell you are a saint. Ten comments posted by Simon and you remain polite and stick to the main point.
Stuart Mitchell you must be ‘ Liberal of the month ‘ for your amazing tolerance and patience !
You are of course right in your understanding of SI procedures. Goodness only knows why Simon persists in making himself look both obsessive and not a little foolish. The original thread on which you were commenting seems to have escaped him. He is probably a good councillor iin Southport, where there is probably much to do in terms of casework and elections. One wonders why he thinks it so important to persist with the pointless denial of his original error. We all make mistakes, especially when it comes to parliamentary mumbo-jumbo.
@JohnTilley
“Stuart Mitchell you are a saint. Ten comments posted by Simon and you remain polite and stick to the main point.”
Whereas I am not a saint. Accordingly, JohnTilley, when are you going to say sorry for the three complete misrepresentations you made of what I had said . After all, if I can say sorry to Stuart Mitchell if I get something wrong, I’m sure you are man enough to do so too.
Simon Shaw not only have I apologised to you, you acknowledged my apology only yesterday. —-
Simon Shaw 12th Feb ’14 – 4:34pm
@JohnTilley
“I am of course delighted to be able to apologise to Simon.”
Good –
Of course your acknowledgement was not entirely gracious but I have come to recognise that you are not that kind of guy. But I think we should move on, don’t you? There are more important things in the world. Life really is too short. Why not just make your views known and I I’ll make my views known?
Passing through, you feature far back in this thread but you are so right. Please shout louder and louder and louder. Please, would someone loudly promote the interests of HE institutions who are not considered to be worthy of the funds they need to deliver the worthwhile courses that they seek to deliver. Surely, the underfunding of many HE courses at less favoured educational institutions is a national scandal.