Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is interviewed today in the Independent on Sunday, with the report inevitably featuring tuition fees:
He says he is still determined to tackle social disadvantage and educational underperformance, and says that a £150m national scholarship scheme will give a year’s free tuition to 18,000 students on free school meals. Universities wanting to breach the £6,000 cap on fees, to charge up to £9,000, will have to give another free year to the poorest students.
In the coming weeks, months and years he will need to “grit my teeth, display a bit of resilience, and explain calmly and logically over and over again why we are doing what we are doing” …
He is anxious to point out that both Labour and Conservatives were “wedded” to a tuition fees rise before the election and students would have faced an increase whoever won.
But he admits the deep anger felt towards the Lib Dems, the “passion, the hurt feelings, the demos and the slogans and the vitriol”, risk deterring those from poorer backgrounds from going to university. “It’s immensely frustrating to me to see a policy which lowers barriers of entry to university being portrayed as putting up barriers.” …
Mr Clegg launches into a detailed explanation of what is planned to make university funding fairer. Upfront fees for the 40 per cent of students who are part-time have been scrapped and the repayment threshold raised. “If you were a care worker starting on £21,000 you pay about £7 a month. Under the current scheme you pay £81 a month and under the 2 per cent graduate tax proposed by Ed Miliband it’s about £36.”
There is also a further acknowledgement that, as often talked about on this blog, the approach of loving everything the coalition is doing in public (even when there have been significant disagreements and concessions from the Conservatives in private) is not what is now needed:
He complains repeatedly that despite “punching above our weight in the coalition” the Lib Dems are not getting “a hearing at all on the policy stuff”. Having come third in the election and made major concessions to the Tories, he says he must be upfront about the difficult decisions as early as possible. “Don’t try and run away from it. Don’t try to hide it, don’t try and paper over it.”
And finally on his relations with David Cameron, Nick Clegg says,
I don’t think what the country wants is for us to become best mates. It’s about, can we sort stuff together?
You can read the full interview here.
UPDATE: The Telegraph has this: Vince Cable and Nick Clegg at loggerheads over tuition fees
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Nick Baird
Andrew Tampion
Anthony Acton
Kira Collins
Tom Bailey
93 Comments
“the passion, the hurt feelings, the demos and the slogans and the vitriol”, risk deterring those from poorer backgrounds from going to university.
Im sorry I didn’t understand – its the student protests that are deterring my nephew from going to university!
“It’s immensely frustrating to me to see a policy which lowers barriers of entry to university being portrayed as putting up barriers.”…
The sheer gall of this statement .
In the coming weeks, months and years he will need to “grit my teeth, display a bit of resilience, and explain calmly and logically over and over again why we are doing what we are doing”
To which I’d say, Iraq – A warning from history. As that strategy sounds eerily close to Blair’s ‘masochism ‘strategy and subsequent claims that he was right all along on Iraq regardelss of what anyone else said. For those who have been living in a cave, this strategy did not turn out well for Blair. To say the least.
“There is also a further acknowledgement that, as often talked about on this blog, the approach of loving everything the coalition is doing in public (even when there have been significant disagreements and concessions from the Conservatives in private) is not what is now needed:”
Better late than never, but the damage has been done and since this stance was always going to have to be ditched for next years elections, and indeed the coming by-election, you have to wonder why it took him so long.
“I don’t think what the country wants is for us to become best mates.”
Again, this realisation is a bit on the belated side as that was not the impression the public received from the stories of making flatpack furniture at number 10 or the many backslapping photo-ops that greeted the coalition. He should really have had the basic common sense to grasp that a sober and polite distance was necessary in public and private between two political leaders, or that would set the agenda and the narrative for all that followed. And it has.
Hurrah! This is a good policy. We also need to make sure that univs can’t work out who are the FSM kids at the time of admissions. (Deleting names, addresses, school names etc from applications would be a good way forward)
The article reeks of pure arrogance. “No Apologies, No Regrets,No Shame” screams the headline on the front page of The Observer. Get out of the JCB Nick and stop digging.
The Lib Dems have learnt a valuable lesson – don’t make promises you can’t possibly keep. Did anybody really think that tuition fees weren’t going to rise?! Reality defeats idealism yet again.
It is quite incredible how unbelievably arrogant Nick Clegg has become since taking office in May.
“the passion, the hurt feelings, the demos and the slogans and the vitriol”, risk deterring those from poorer backgrounds from going to university”
Would he like to clarify that statement? Would he like to explain how these protests are putting potential graduates off? Is he really that arrogant to dismiss any effect his much-defended tuition fees policy will have on attendance? I’ve read and re-read his interview in the Indy – and it’s true. He blames the protests – not the rise in fees.
“I don’t think what the country wants is for us to become best mates. It’s about, can we sort stuff together?”
And yet – it has been and continues to be his strategy to appear alongside a front-bench Tory on every policy announcement since May? And when he’s with Cameron to finish each other’s sentences to show loyalty?
Cowley Street is making it up day by day at present.
Sounds great till you actually try and look at the detail. I seem to remember Goves before the GE attacking Labour because only 40-45 students at Cambridge and Oxford had free school meals at school. So do we know how many students at Russell Group uni’s had free school meals.
I came from a poor background and was eligible for free school meals but my single parent mum worked her fingers to the bone to make sure I didn’t have the stigma of getting free school meals and I don’t doubt this ethos still works today among many poor but proud people. Then what about kids, ostensibly eligible for free school meals, who go home at lunch or to a gran or relative or who take pieces to school. Does this mean they are no longer eligible to get tuition paid.
And then we have the 9K unis – will they actually pay the second year fees or will they subtly make sure they just don’t accept these students. Is the government going to be forced to set a percentage of school meal students that they must take.
What an absolute bloody mess and the LibDem leadership just keeps digging apparently without realising the damage they are going to inflict on the uni system and many individual students.
The big picture here isn’t the actual raising of fees per se – it’s the change in the way university teaching is being funded. The Tories for purely ideological reasons have decided that the state is going to withdraw from providing any funding so it has cut 80 per cent this time and the other 20 per cent is no doubt planned to follow when the dust settles or whenever they ditch their LibDem coalition partners and the latter looks as though it will come first.
I don’t really care what Ed Millinband’s policy might have been. I voted libdem because I supported your party, your principles (remember them Nick?)
And if your talking about any debt, the size of payments is only part of the equation. You’re starting to sound like one of those dubious loan companies
“Mr Clegg launches into a detailed explanation of what is planned to make university funding fairer.”
But again “forgets” to tell us that the £21,000 repayment threshold is not in today’s money but in that of 2016, and will remain in force for another five years after that – making it actually lower in comparison with wages than the current threshold.
Completely dishonest, but one has to give him credit for hoodwinking a lot of people with this bit of presentational sleight of hand.
Not the protests, the Labour agitators who are organising the protests and lying to him about him being unable to afford it.
““If you were a care worker starting on £21,000 you pay about £7 a month. Under the current scheme you pay £81 a month and under the 2 per cent graduate tax proposed by Ed Miliband it’s about £36.” ”
Where do these figures come from?
The Browne report says that someone earing £21k would pay £0.
If earning £21k under the current scheme you’d pay a 9% contribution on £6k of that (the bit over £15k). That’s £540 a year which is £45 a month not £81.
I don’t know the details of the Miliband plan but 2% tax on earnings of £21k (provided the thresholds is the same) is £270 a year which is £22 a month.
@ Richard who states: ‘Did anybody really think that tuition fees weren’t going to rise?’
Well I’m not a LibDem member but I thought the whole of the LibDem party thought just that and it was not only a Manifesto commitment but party policy.
Clegg and Cable and Alexander also thought that or else they have lied through their teeth for a long time now. Obviously the party elite or a Clegg Clique changed their mind in March when they started examining how the possibility of a coalition might effect party policy and Manifesto commitments.
They decided to ditch the tuition fees policy but it seems this was done in secret and not referred to the wider membership or any of the policy making forums. Indeed it has also become clear that the vast majority of the pledge signers didn’t know about the policy change.
So where are we – we are left with a cheal bauble of a bribe to a virtual handful of poorer students which has more holes in it than a collander and every time one is revealed there will be another backwash of student resentment but does that matter? Obviously not to Clegg who has a lot of gritting in teeth in front of him but no shame or regrets lol. Well, he’s young and he’ll eventually learn and come to realise that humility is no bad thing for anyone who holds immense power over the lives of others.
Hywel
“Where do these figures come from?”
They come from an open letter from Clegg to the NUS, which explained a bit more about the assumptions but still left gaping holes. It’s not just someone on £21,000 – it’s assumed their salary will rise a certain amount in real terms over 20 years and so on.
But as I said, the biggest nonsense is the comparison between a repayment threshold of £21,000 in 2016-2020 terms and a £15,000 threshold today.
Aaron Porter on TV just now saying he wrote to Clegg weeks ago challenging him to public debate on tuition fees rise.
He ripped Clegg’s Indy article to shreds and was so forceful I’m not surprised that Clegg doesn’t want to face him publicly.
One thing he did mention that I’d forgot is that unis already have to help poorer students with fees so what extra, if anything, will the new measures give to these students especially when you remeber the scrapping of EMA.
The trouble is that with every attempt to amend the policy, or to wriggle a bit further away from the pledge fiasco, they are making it worse.
Let’s take a look at the latest offering. If you believe that the policy is fair and that students only pay after they graduate, why discriminate against those who do not receive free school meals ? Surely if fees do not put off people from poorer backgrounds (both Clegg and Cable have stated publically there is no evidence to support this) then why pay their fees ?
So now we would have two students, identical degrees and following career pathways. One comes from a family somewhere above the income required for free school meals (say with a teacher or nurse as a parent). The other comes from a poorer background.
Both eat, live and socialise the same throughout university. Both get 2:1 degrees, both enter a graduate program, both get to the magic £21K level after a year or so. One owes a fortune and will pay back for 30 years the other only owes 1 years fees and is debt free in 5.
Fair and progressive eh! If you believe fees are fair, appropriate, and repayment is linked to future earnings, you simply cannot also believe it is right to reduce the repayments based upon parents income.
Education should be paid for through taxation. The country benefits from the higher earnings of graduates through their higher tax payments. If neccesary put up the 40p rate of tax by a bit, most graduates get to this rate at some point.
As for this sweetener, could it be more insignificant? Something like 3-4% of students will get one year’s free tuition, or two if they’re lucky.
And it’s targeted at students from poor backgrounds. Why? Surely the concern should be about graduates on low salaries, who are going to be hit be a 30-year supertax that starts when they are way below the median salary.
“and says that a £150m national scholarship scheme will give a year’s free tuition to 18,000 students on free school meals. Universities wanting to breach the £6,000 cap on fees, to charge up to £9,000, will have to give another free year to the poorest students.”
This is a stupid policy in any case. That money will only benefit those students from disadvantaged backgrounds who complete their degree and get a job earning over £21k. Given that this policy is based on Browne’s conclusion that increased fees don’t deter students from disadvantaged backgrounds it doesn’t seem to be needed.
However it will do nothing to assist those students who will struggle more to pay their living costs whilst studying. That is a common cause of drop out or a detrimental impact on studying of needing to work in term time. Far better to put it into increased maintenance payments.
What about the hardworking decent parents whose children will be saddled with massive debts.These parents who are working all the hours god sends will now be penalised.
Hard working parents who voted for the lib dems will now think again about who to cast their votes for.
Electoral wipeout in 2015 is on the cards.
Please lib dem MPs must stand firm and vote against the government policy on tuition fees.
Nick Clegg may be right that some parts of the Browne proposals, particularly those relating to part-time students, are better than the current system. But that does not change the fact that the rest of the shift is in a completely opposite direction to LD policy, marketising the entire degree process. The arguments for how this damages access for individuals, severs the link between education and national good and ignores the imperfect operation of markets for services such as education have been made repeatedly elsewhere… not least by Nick and other Lib Dem MPs in the last election campaign.
The Browne reforms are not emergency budget measures to address Labour’s deficit. They are a systemic shift away from the principles Lib Dems support for HE. I can accept compromise on policies in coalition, but this is a betrayal of a personal mandate Lib Dem MPs accepted from the electorate.
Well done Nick for standing up for the way we’ve improved the Browne proposals to make them a much better option than the NUS’ graduate tax, or the uncapped tuition fees that Tory and Labour MPs stood on at the General Election.
Shame that Nick’s dithering has cost us an awful lot of support. Shame that many Lib Dems (including 104 of our PPCs who didn’t win – sour grapes?) have done their best to damage the party by regurgitating NUS lies.
This is a good policy. It’s not the best policy, and it’s not what we wanted, but it’s a good policy, an improvement over the status quo to make it easier for the poor to go to Uni. And instead we hear about students from poor backgrounds marching against them because they’ve been told that it’s all about tripling tuition fees.
Nick’s right that people have stirred up an emotional rejection of our proposals. I joined the Lib Dems because I wanted to be part of a party where reasoned arguments could win the day, and I’m ashamed that our own Liberal Youth wing has joined in the emotional smear campaign.
Dave Page – When it comes to an “emotional smear campaign” I don’t suppose your attack on 104 hard-working PPCs having “sour grapes” would count? I am sure you’re right that you have a monopoly on “reasoned argument” and anyone who disagrees with you on policy is stupid or evil.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is interviewed today in the Independent …
Has anybody bothered to read the article? Does anybody believe anything Nick Clegg says?
If, like me, you care about the future of Liberal Democrat Party, you will listen to what is actually being said and take stock of what is written.
When LD’s entered into Coalition Agreement Nick Clegg stated that the agreement was to run for whole term of parliament. That there would be some uncomfortable bits, but a lot of LD manifesto policies would be fulfilled (something that would NOT have happened from Opposition). So judge Nick Clegg at end of parliament, not now.
Rather than tearing in to Nick Clegg because you don’t agree with him on this, or that, we should get behind him and the Liberal Democrat’s for the good of the Party. By all means disagree, be diverse which is healthy, but do it in a structured way, rather than a witch-hunt.
Incidentally (EcoJon – They decided to ditch the tuition fees policy but it seems this was done in secret and not referred to the wider membership or any of the policy making forums. Indeed it has also become clear that the vast majority of the pledge signers didn’t know about the policy change.) see Telegraph Article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/6965385/Liberal-Democrats-scrap-key-policy-pledges.html
Can’t get much more public…
“Well done Nick for standing up for the way we’ve improved the Browne proposals to make them a much better option than the NUS’ graduate tax …”
You keep saying things like this, and I wish just once in a while you would come up with some facts to justify your claims.
In what respect have the Browne proposals been “improved”?
The most significant single change is the one I mentioned above – the £21,000 repayment threshold recommended by Browne will not apply in 2012 as had been expected, but for the period 2016-2020. That means the scheme is _far_ less progressive – indeed, the new threshold will be lower in comparison with earnings than the current one.
Another change is that – as far as I can tell from the incomplete details that have been announced – the arrangements for maintenance grants and loans are less generous than those recommended by Browne.
Another change is that the interest rate is going to be higher than was recommended by Browne.
It’s true that there’s going to be a cap of £9,000, and the norm is to be £6,000 rather than £7,000 – insofar as the norm means anything. But the majority of graduates – including the lower-earning ones – aren’t expected to pay off their loans in full anyway, so the level of fees is actually immaterial to them.
So in what respect has the government “improved” Browne’s proposals? As far as I can see they have made them a damn sight worse, in an effort to save money.
@RichardSM
“Has anybody bothered to read the article? Does anybody believe anything Nick Clegg says”
I believe him when he said
On Lib Dems at the next election ‘We will be able to stand not only on a record but what we want for the future”
I also believe that the amount of Liberal Democrat MP’s that get elected will be able to stand on a single Beer crate.
Rob Strickland.
And in that way lies political suicide.
You cannot renege so clearly on policy commitments; you cannot wed yourselves so tightly to the Tories; You cannot appear so arrogant and aloof in power and not expect to be crushed come the next election.
The party is in good health if it holds Clegg + Cable to account. To back them with no thought shows cowardice.
As a founder member Liberal Democrat and `Activist’ and experince as a hard pressed student of `Liberal Government- 1906-16 at UEA in the early 1980`s the ability of Nick Clegg to appeal to the majority of decent and conscienable `die-hards’ in our great Party, is both telling and a potential `water-shed’ on the question of `Student Tuition Fees’ increases.
I want to see max concessions made on behalf of the poorest working class students aiming highest to lift themselves out of a `poverty trap’ by choosing to work hard over a 3 year higher education degree, at the most reasonable and fair cost to their bank balances and `life chances’, over time.
The additional new help to close the disparity gap on improving social ability from aspirant students on Free School Meals is better.
But will the concessions wrung out of the Tories cause some `stigma’ and potential skewing by Universities, who remain free to choose their student intake,arbitraily based on grades and interview and on whether or not they will have to subsidise one year`s `Tuition Fees’?.
But the new £150M will represent a step in the right direction but still more help to allow a level playing for the least off students is required before next Thursday`s Parliamentary Vote.
I put the view that `Students` Tuition Fees’ should not be raised disproportionately, at a time when the Chancellor has stated unequivocally that 9 Billion Eoros can be found for Ireland.
And whilst the City Bankers are in receipt of unmitigated bonuses and MP`s have been allowed to continue to make legitimate `Expenses’ claims of £3 M since May 6th 2010 over the first 6 months of the `Coalition Agreement’..
@Rob Stickland
“When LD’s entered into Coalition Agreement Nick Clegg stated that the agreement was to run for whole term of parliament. That there would be some uncomfortable bits, but a lot of LD manifesto policies would be fulfilled (something that would NOT have happened from Opposition). So judge Nick Clegg at end of parliament, not now.
Rather than tearing in to Nick Clegg because you don’t agree with him on this, or that, we should get behind him and the Liberal Democrat’s for the good of the Party”
How Ridiculous.
Are you really suggesting that People should shut up and be quiet and allow the coalition government and more importantly the Liberal Democrats, to pass policies that
A) Goes against policies in which they where elected on
and
B) Pass coalition Policies, that were in neither parties manifesto’s For Example (changes to Housing Benefit & Disability Benefits), which the public are against.
Are you seriously suggesting that the public should shut up, allow these policies to pass, and then judge Clegg and other Liberal Democrats in 2015?
How very undemocratic
@Dave Page
Just like the US Administration blames Juian Assange for the failures in the US State Dept.
Just like those who blame FIFA and the BBC for the failure to win hosting of World Cup.
So, certain Lib Dems blame anybody (protesting students, the NUS, Labour, the coalition agreement ) for the failure to keep to their signed pledge.
And now, you want to include Liberal Youth Wing on the list.
Anybody else you’d like to add?
I still remember the Treaty of Lisbon pledge you made at the previous GE which you broke denying the public a referendum which you had promised and were empowered to enact. Surely you are not surprised that the leadership have broken another promise?
Richard Huzzey, I never claimed a monopoly on reasoned argument. Nor have I claimed that people who disagree with me are stupid or evil. I’ve seen people come out both against and in favour of these proposals who have given reasoned arguments which I can respect even if I don’t agree.
I admit, my sour grapes comment was over the top. But I’m fed up of, for example, these PPCs claiming that anybody who doesn’t vote against the proposals has “no integrity” because the proposals “triple tuition fees”. That’s a misrepresentation, and it’s an attempt to bully people with a contrafactual emotional smear. It’s people like that who make me ashamed to be a Lib Dem, not Nick Clegg, and I don’t even like these proposals.
Cuse
Firstly my name has no ‘R’ in it…
The problem as I see it is a lot of people are too used to Opposition, where you can oppose Govt policy as much as you like, say what you like, very easy. Now it’s time for ‘grown-up’ politics.
Being in a coalition means working to get somewhere, uncomfortable yes, but a lot more effective than shouting from the sidelines. Balances have to be struck, that sometimes go against principles and party policy. That IS Coalition Government.
When will people understand what Coalition Government actually is?
I would rather have SOME Manifesto policies, however uncomfortable, than NOTHING from Opposition.
We have to make public see LD’s in action, making our policies happen, on that they will judge. and just think what would the Tory policies be like without the Liberal Democrat’s around!!
Matt
No!! I’m suggesting you should read Coalition Agreement, look at what Lib Dem policies in there and then understand what is happening.
I agree that Nick etc. should know how rank and file feel ( I said that in first comment) but that doesn’t mean we should shoot him down for not following whole manifesto. Just remember we LOST the election, we shouldn’t be too greedy!!
@matt
It’s the media and the electorate’s fault for not lisening to Nick Clegg properly when he responded to questions about what we can expect if Lib Dems were elected.
We all thought he was saying: “No more broken promises.”
But, in fact, he was actually saying:
“No. More broken promises.”
“that doesn’t mean we should shoot him down for not following whole manifesto. Just remember we LOST the election, we shouldn’t be too greedy!!”
As has been pointed out about a hundred times now, this has nothing to do with the manifesto. The pledge to vote against raising tuition fees wasn’t even in the manifesto.
It was an unconditional promise given by candidates about how they would vote if elected – whether in government, opposition, coalition or whatever. It certainly didn’t depend on the Lib Dems being in government. In fact if the Lib Dems were in government it would be wholly unnecessary – it made sense only in the event that the Lib Dems _didn’t_ win the election.
@ Anthony Aloysius St
Thanks for making that distinction.
I have never made a comment one way, or another on tuition fees.
I believe it is up to the individual MP to follow their conscience, on that subject/vote. Though it would be stupid and nonsensical for LD cabinet members to vote against…
Aah, AAS is misrepresenting the NUS pledge again. It is not a pledge to vote against raising tuition fees. It is a pledge to vote against raising tuition fees, and to introduce fairer HE funding.
The proposals are fairer, in that the rich pay more so the poor pay less, but raise the cap to allow the rich to pay more. Therefore however any MP from any party votes on the proposals, if they signed the pledge they’re breaking it.
“Andrew Suffield
Posted 5th December 2010 at 10:54 am | Permalink
Im sorry I didn’t understand – its the student protests that are deterring my nephew from going to university!
Not the protests, the Labour agitators who are organising the protests and lying to him about him being unable to afford it.”
Whaaaat?
This comment winds me up nearly, NEARLY as much then Nick’s smug, condenscending and patronising article in the Independent! Urgh!
Why do Lib Demmers on the inside apropriate this arrogant behaviour of people who have no clue of what the world looks like outside political parties???
It’s a chicken and egg situation-which came first? Arrogant plonkers going into politics or poltics making people become arrogant plonkers?
A huge amount of the protesters are NOT Labour. When will you guys get it through your heads that many are Lib Demmers or people who voted for the Libs? If I got a fiver for people who told me they are never voting for the party again, I’d be a millionaire. And these guys are NOT Labourites at all…
In fact, they are the people who have always been in the middle-centre-but have been pushed away.
I feel like I’m in the twilight zone. This is so depressing that people in party don’t get how detrimental this is for the party-I just wished he would apologise and be humble. His arrogance makes the situation worse.
@Patrick Smith
“But the new £150M will represent a step in the right direction but still more help to allow a level playing for the least off students is required before next Thursday`s Parliamentary Vote.”
The £150 million is not something new being announced. This £150m scholarship fund was announced at the same time as the response to the Browne Review.
But as i said previously, If EMA has been removed and is preventing students from poorer backgrounds studying A-Levels. The Scholarship fund for university is pretty pointless anyway, Because the Student has not got the A-levels to go onto a university degree in the 1st place
“And whilst the City Bankers are in receipt of unmitigated bonuses and MP`s have been allowed to continue to make legitimate `Expenses’ claims of £3 M since May 6th 2010 over the first 6 months of the `Coalition Agreement’.”
It is actually only 3 months, the figures released where from May till the end of August
Dave
“Aah, AAS is misrepresenting the NUS pledge again.”
You really have a hell of a nerve.
Quite clearly the pledge obliges those who signed it to vote against an increase in tuition fees, whatever else it may oblige them to do in addition. And – as has been pointed out to you before when you’ve come out with this nonsense – in any case the vote next week is on the straight question of whether to raise fees. Nothing else, because we haven’t even seen the full details of the repayment scheme yet.
Anyhow, I asked you a question above. You claimed that the Lib Dems had “improved” Browne’s proposals. I’ll ask you again – how? You blather on about the arguments against the proposals being “emotional.” So how about discussing the issues rather than evading them?
@Dave Page
Here’s the pledge again:
I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.
It’s not an ‘either/or’ statement
The pledge isn’t to vote against an increaseOR to introduce a fairer alternative.
The pledge is very clear.
RichardSM, yes, the pledge is clear. Those who vote for the Government proposals are voting to increase tuition fees, and breaking the pledge. Those who vote against the Government proposals are voting against fairer HE funding, and breaking the pledge.
That’s why I said above that anybody who signed the pledge will break it however they vote.
Dave
How many times does something have to be pointed out to you before it penetrates?
The vote next week is on the straight question of whether to raise fees. Nothing else.
This thread is SO depressing. It isn’t so much Clegg and his acolytes propping up a right-wing Tory government, double-crossing the electorate, reneging on promises freely entered into, letting down those very students who cheered us on and helped us reach 23% of the vote, etc, etc, etc. What really angers me is the fact that there are STILL members and activists in this party who defend Clegg and try to excuse his perfidy with clever, but ultimately specious circumlocutions (raising tuition fees is really progressive, even if it doesn’t appear so, blah, blah, blah). How can they be so purblind? They don’t believe the bladerdash they spout, do they? Or do they?
Oh, and I find the patronising put-downs of students frankly offensive. I am uncomfortably reminded of the late Spiro T Agnew and his “campus bums” jibes. After all, Clegg has taken this party to Agnew’s side of the political spectrum, so what can we expect? For my part, I think the student protesters have been magificent. Let’s have some more! (Burning an effigy of Clegg is a waste of good cardboard.)
People should really make sure they have ALL the facts, so they can make an INFORMED opinion.
1) The Vote on the 9th of December is about the Governments proposals to raise the cap on tuition fee’s to £9000
2) There will be another vote, sometime in 2011, on repayment thresholds, part time students, Maintenance grants e.t.c.
The Pledge was
I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.
That gives MP’s a clear opportunity to keep to their promise to the electorate, and, to vote against the first part of the policy on the 9th December.
Come 2011, when the coalition actually gets it act together and decides once and for all what the repayment terms are. MP’s will be free to vote in favour of the fairer alternative, if they do indeed feel that the new system is fairer.
*It would in my opinion, be Irresponsible of any MP to vote for an increase in fee’s, when they government has not made itself clear on the FULL details of the repayment terms e.t.c
** The latest news that the coalition will pay for up to 18000 students who are eligible for free school meals, for the 1st year of their Degree is not NEW. This will be paid out of the £150 million Scholarship fund, which was announced by the Business Secretary Vince Cable at the same time as he announced the rise in fee’s.
@Mark
Even as an ex member this is still an interesting site . It would be interesting to have background about who makes the comments though . Wouldinging if a voluntary tick box with options such as party member ex party member formed voter current voter . Other party member etc would help give some insight .
As for Clegg I found his article smug and self centred. deliberately misleading as he chose a graduate earning 21K rather than say 30k when the 9% super tax would really dig in or 48K (a very good wage but not a fortune) when a graduate would nearly be paying the 50% super tax that the lib dems didn’t even think fit for high earners on £150K .
Suddenly an overall 2% graduate tax starts to sound fair . If indeed that is the only option (which it probibly isnt).
People should really make sure they have all the facts, so they can make an informed opinion.
1) The Vote on the 9th of December is about the Governments proposals to raise the cap on tuition fee’s to £9000
2) There will be another vote, sometime in 2011, on repayment thresholds, part time students, Maintenance grants e.t.c.
The Pledge was
I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.
That gives MP’s a clear opportunity to keep to their promise to the electorate, and, to vote against the first part of the policy on the 9th December.
Come 2011, when the coalition actually gets it act together and decides once and for all what the repayment terms are. MP’s will be free to vote in favour of the fairer alternative, if they do indeed feel that the new system is fairer.
It would in my opinion, be Irresponsible of any MP to vote for an increase in fee’s, when they government has not made itself clear on the full details of the repayment terms e.t.c
The latest news that the coalition will pay for up to 18000 students who are eligible for free school meals, for the 1st year of their Degree is not NEW. This will be paid out of the £150 million Scholarship fund, which was announced by the Business Secretary Vince Cable at the same time as he announced the rise in fee’s.
@ Rob Stickland who stated: ‘Incidentally (EcoJon – They decided to ditch the tuition fees policy but it seems this was done in secret and not referred to the wider membership or any of the policy making forums. Indeed it has also become clear that the vast majority of the pledge signers didn’t know about the policy change.) see Telegraph Article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/6965385/Liberal-Democrats-scrap-key-policy-pledges.html
Can’t get much more public…’
Thanks for reminding me about that article where Clegg stated in January this year: ”We will not be able to deliver our pledge on scrapping tuition fees – something we are determined to do – on the timetable we have once envisaged. The reason we are doing this is because it is important to treat people like grown-ups.”
OK so Clegg scrapped the policy in January so why was he demanding that PPCs sign individual NUS pledges months later. I am also confused as my memory seems to be telling me that Clegg claims the decision was made by him after Osborne revealed the state of the UK economy after the election.
Rob – the Telegraph article just reinforces my argument – I said the decision was taken in secret by Clegg and a small clique and I think it is a bit naughty to try and attack that accurate statement in attempting to misuse the D Tel article. But perhaps you can comment on the questions I have posed above and also advise me who exactly Clegg is referring to when he states ‘WE’ as I don’t think it is the LibDem party or any of its policy-making forums although not being a party member I could easily be wrong. I also don’t think it referred to sitting MPs or PPCs. So was it just Clegg and Alexander deciding what policy would sit with a Tory coalition and this begs the question about when the informal moves began between senior Tories and LibDem figures about forming a coalition.
It will out eventually of course once the memoirs start 🙂
And another thing I can’t understand about Clegg’s position is why hasn’t he made clear that it is long term LibDem policy to scrap tuition fees as that is what he appears to be saying in the D Tel article. Why is he silent on this, surely nothing in the coalition agreement prevents him from proclaiming LibDem policies even though it might take longer than envisaged in current party policy.
I see Willetts has just been wheeled out on on TV news and they’re now talking about increasing other maintenance payments so they say as the school meal ticket will only apply to families earning under 10K a year. Willetts states there will be help for families earning up to 25K and they will look for matched funding from the unis to pay for the second year.
Sounds very much is this isn’t going to be made law so it’s all still very woolly and the detail totally missing. But obviously Cable is being kept well away from the TV as who knows what his next policy position could turn out to be lol.
@Dave Page
Just because someone says something is fair, does not mean that it is fair.
They’ve had the opportunity to put their “reasoned argument” and failed to convince me. And they’ve failed to convince a large part of the student population that it is fair.
They should give-up this proposal and admit defeat.
“As for Clegg I found his article smug and self centred. deliberately misleading as he chose a graduate earning 21K …”
Without having proper details of the calculation it’s difficult to know, but it seems that he chose someone actually right on the threshold in order to minimise the amount paid. (I suspect the only reason they paid anything at all is because the threshold will lag behind inflation, as it applies for 5 years at a time.)
And it can’t be said too often that the really misleading thing is that he didn’t mention that this is £21,000 in 2016-2020, not £21,000 now. I reckon the threshold will be around 60% of the median full-time salary by that time, on the Treasury’s own assumptions about the future growth of earnings.
@EcoJon
I think that the tuition fee fiasco is a hard lesson learned and one that we need to take heed of in the future. Indeed it now is a damned if they do, damned if they don’t scenario.
For that reason I make no comment on which way I believe is right or wrong, just point out facts and let everyone make their own minds up.
My focus is for the long term and all the policies that we all agree on that can be passed in the life of this Govt. May seem like a cop out but I think there are bigger debates to be had…
“OK so Clegg scrapped the policy in January so why was he demanding that PPCs sign individual NUS pledges months later.”
What happened was that the timescale for the Lib Dem policy of abolishing fees altogether was lengthened. That policy was in the manifesto and would presumably have been enacted if the Lib Dems had won the election.
The pledges were to vote against any increase in fees. They were signed by candidates of all parties and weren’t conditional on the overall result of the election.
It seems to say that if we had a majority Lib Dem governmen they wouldn’t be implementing this – does anyone know if it is still policy to revert to scrapping tuition fees if the Lib Dems do get a majority.
Anthony Aloyisus St (BTW weren’t you a Tory candidate for the London County Council :-))
Do you have a source for this letter you refer to above?
RichardSM, when I stop reading quotes from students in the papers in which they repeat the false information provided by the NUS and others, then I will agree with your contention that the Government’s proposals have been openly and rationally debated by students. I don’t think it’s right to “admit defeat” in the face of a smear campaign.
@Dave Page
“Shame that Nick’s dithering has cost us an awful lot of support. Shame that many Lib Dems (including 104 of our PPCs who didn’t win – sour grapes?) have done their best to damage the party by regurgitating NUS lies.”
Reminding people of their pledge is not regurgitating NUS lies. Nobody made all the Lib Dem candidates sign it.
Hywel
This should take you to it:
http://tinyurl.com/39j5z7m
Was I really a Tory candidate for the LCC? I didn’t think it covered Cheam.
@Dave Page
“Those who vote against the Government proposals are voting against fairer HE funding, and breaking the pledge.”
Read the pledge. they do not break it if they vote against. It requires them to vote against higher fees and to pressure for a fairer system. Both are possible.
Let’s not forget that it was this coaltion government that robbed 600,000 children of their eligibility for free school meals. Now we know why. The so called scholarship fund would never be large enough to pay for all the free school meal children who wanted to go to university.
@Sesenco
“If we exited the “coalition” and forced the Tories to govern as a minority, then we would be exercising some real, as opposed to ersatz, influence.”
Excellent, Sesenco. Just what I have been urging on this site since the Lib Dems Molotov/Ribbentrop pact was entered into in May. The sad thing is that if your party, back then, had forced the Tories to govern as a minority you would have avoided public obloquy and, if the circumstances had required, you would have had no difficulty collectively honouring your pledge and voting not to raise tuition fees. Doesn’t this occur to anyone at the top of your party?
@ AAS
Anthony I agree with most of what you say on here but the point I was trying to make is that I believe the sole reason Clegg scrapped party policy – and it doesn’t really matter whether the party policy timescale for implementing it – was because serious informal coalition talks had already taken place between some senior Tories and LibDems about the problems facing any future coalition.
Btw I’m not attacking Clegg for this – he would have been kept at arms’ length although obviously getting report-back and providing deefback to the LibDem negotiators/talkers/participants/dinner party guests. In the run-up to the election it could be seen as prudent to have these discussions especially if the National Interest drum was being loudly beaten by the Tories. Pfroblem obviously was that Clegg doesn’t seem to have realised just how far apart he and the Tories are on the definition of National Interest.
No my problem with Clegg is that he fails to adequately explain the change in tack or indeed final destination on tuition fees and I again believe that is because he feels he cannot admit to the level of discussions that took place pre-election regarding the working of a coalition.
The Tories would obviously have made it clear that LibDem party policy on tuition fees would not be acceptable to them under any circumstances. So Clegg is left looking weak/naive/stupid/dithering – take your pic.
And if Im correct the negotiations will eventually come to light – politicians are like moths to the candle and just won’t be able to resist making it clear in their memoirs just how important they are or were.
Clegg could actually bed sitting showing that he had the presence of mind to plan for the inevitable in the National Interest and you know, he might have got away with it but he chose another route that is heading to melt-down for him which is no real loss but for his party and the decent and sensible people in it who want to improve democracy and social justice, it most certainly is.
EcoJohn
Just clarifying, as I though Rob Strickland’s implication that the policy of abolishing tuition fees had been publicly ditched in January was grossly misleading.
“when I stop reading quotes from students in the papers in which they repeat the false information provided by the NUS and others, then I will agree with your contention that the Government’s proposals have been openly and rationally debated by students.”
I haven’t actually seen any “false information” emanating from the NUS.
Unfortunately I’ve seen a shed-load coming from Lib Dems.
@Dave Page
“when I stop reading quotes from students in the papers in which they repeat the false information provided by the NUS and others, then I will agree with your contention that the Government’s proposals have been openly and rationally debated by students”
Perhaps you can provide some links to this false information your claiming?
I have not seen any such false information myself from the NUS or in the media.
The only false information being released has been by Liberal Democrat Ministers, hence the reason, there has been so many claims and counter-claims, spins and turns by Vince Cable.
In view of the imminent Tuition Fees debate I am wondering which song Vince Cable is going to dance to when he makes his debut on Strictly Come Dancing? I suggest the Bucks Fizz classic: “Making Your Mind Up.”
Deliberately avoiding the point, I see. The identity of the protesters is not at issue. None of them are deterring anybody from going to university.
It’s not the crowd of protesters that makes people think they can afford it. It’s the one guy who told that crowd a somewhat distorted view of what was happening.
All UK-born 25 year old UK citizens should have a basic minimum UK Universal Inheritance at 25 – financed by radical reform of taxation on on the receipt of gifted and inherited capital – which they can use for tuition fees or for other purposes if they do not go to university.
Banks would, of course, lend from 18 against the certain receipt at 25. The government could subsidise interest rates for such loans for education.
It is time to redistribute wealth in our dangerously unequal country, and the only time at which it is practical to do that is at the point of transfer from each generation to the next.
In fact, even over this latest initiative we’re being presented with contradictory information. In the Independent interview, Clegg says:
“We are looking at an idea so that about 18,000 students – so that’s more than enough to cover all those presently on free school meals and all those on the pupil premium – bright but disadvantaged kids, will go to university and we will under the scheme we are looking at guarantee them two years of free tuition.
…
two of the three years of a normal course will be tuition fee free.”
And then he goes on to say that this will partly be funded by the government, but that universities charging more than £6,000 “to provide that matching year free.”
Surely the only way to read that is that all 18,000 of these poor students will receive two years’ tuition free of fees. But that’s certainly not what’s being reported elsewhere. Elsewhere it’s being said that poor students paying £6,000 will receive one year free and students paying more than that will receive two.
What’s the truth? Anybody’s guess, I suppose.
There are 80,000 children claiming FSM. 18,000 ‘scholarships’ leave too much of a gap.
Oxfford and cambridge already offer substantial bursaries for low income familes well above the amount of a year’s fee. Other universities already offer bursaries equivelant to a year’s fee. The amount by which the fee debt will rise even IF one can obtain a scholarship from the government is at least double to a tripling once the old bursary system is taken into account.
There is no help for families who do not get FSM (which relies on a benefit level income) and are low income. A much stressed group.
Low income students already receive a mandatory £300 bursary from universities. The rise in repayable maintenance allowance by £300 merely compensates for the abolition of this and transforms it into a debt.
Universities have raised accomodation costs to incredible and onerous levels. The maintenance allowance is swallowed almost entirely by the cost of accomodation. The only way students previously could then afford living costs for food, travel, books, clothes etc was via the bursary system or via parental help or via working. The removal of the bursary system to be replaced by a narrowly focused remission of fees system makes accessing education unaffordable for some at the point of entry.
I could go on but I won’t. This is ill thought out legislation and every attempt to persuade us otherwise makes Nick Clegg look plain daft.
As for the policy on EMA… words fail me.
“There are 80,000 children claiming FSM. 18,000 ‘scholarships’ leave too much of a gap.”
Yes. Clegg says that 18,000 will be “more than enough to cover all those presently on free school meals.” I wonder. Obviously not all the 80,000 go to university, but can it really be true that less than 22.5% do, compared with nearly half of the population as a whole?
£150 million, Would only cover 18000 Students on a course that costs up to £8333
As Anthony Aloysius St, points out, 18’000 is only 22.5% of the eligible 80’000 who get free school meals.
Are we really led to believe that only 22.5% of this group wants to go on to university education, compares to 50% of other groups?
Unfortunately the removal of EMA is going to be a very large stop sign for , most students from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds anyway, Without EMA, many students will find it impossible to study for A-Levels, let alone go on to getting a degree.
It is also worth pointing out that the only people who get Free School meals are Students whose parents are either in receipt of one of the following.
Income Support
income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
an income-related employment and support allowance
Child Tax Credit (provided they are not entitled to Working Tax Credit) and have an annual income that does not exceed £16,190
Now I would not consider a family that has a household income of more than £16’190 as being particularly well off, and yet a student who comes from a household of more than this, would obviously not be entitled to help from the £150 Million Pound Scholarship fund.
I remember when the policy was iniitially introduced this ‘scholarship’ scheme was announced. At the time they said that though fees would rise in 2012 the new fund for scholarships would be introduced in c,2015. Does anyone know the date when the scheme is to be introduced for sure? A missing three years of even this paltry support would be significant.
In additIon I also remember that the scholarship scheme was to limit its awards to subjects designated as worthwhile by government rather than by student choice thus making the scheme very restrictive indeed.
@ paul barker who said: ‘One good thing about the bile & intimidation from Labour & their stooges is the oppotunity it gives us to toughen up & develop some self-confidence.’
I have plenty of self-confidence thanks. What I don’t have is the desire to defend poor legislation and swop the principles of honest politics for macho posturings excused by the empty rhetoric of ‘real politick’.
@Mary
You are correct.
Tuition fee’s go up as of 2012
But the chancellor and Vince cable have both said that the £150 million Scholarship fund won’t be put into place until 2014-15
Well spotted.
And another example of this inept government
“In fact, even over this latest initiative we’re being presented with contradictory information. …. What’s the truth? Anybody’s guess, I suppose.”
Blind panic by Clegg, is my guess. Scratching around for a few extra crumbs to throw to his backbenchers at the last minute, in the hope of changing a vote or two. It sounds desperate:
http://exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/exquisite_life/2010/12/tuition-fees-playbook-the-key-events-and-decisions-in-the-next-five-days.html
Spending Review
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spend_sr2010_easyread.htm
Page 7 of the Document
“protecting those on the lowest incomes in higher education through a national scholarship fund of £150 million a year by 2014-15”
You really do have to read the small print, don’t you? It’s like dealing with a really dodgy second-hand car salesman.
@David Allen
Is the Private forum more active with Liberal Democrat members, than the public forum?
There has been a distinct lack of posts from regular Libdem Posters in the last couple of weeks. Simon Shaw, Elizabeth, orangepan and George Kendall to name but a few.
Is there a reason that Liberal Democrats are not engaging as much on the Public Forum?
Ho AAS
Stop maligning cardboard car sales people – at least they have the patter and ability to close the deal and don’t do car crashes which is a helluva lot better than Clegg can manage 🙂
@ Rantersp and your fiver.
Most of the people who say they’re “never voting Lib Dem again” didn’t vote Lib Dem this time. That’s ultimately why tuition fees are going up – because they voted, in huge numbers, for parties that believe in higher fees (Labour and Tories).
Vote Labservative and that’s what you get.
Breaking the pledge is not a good thing, but it was either: (a) vote against/abstain in line with the coalition agreement and make very little difference, or (b) fully engage with the policy and make it as good as you can, but the price of that being vote in favour . . . a catch 22 if ever there was one.
Ps on the point about the protestors and agitators discouraging people from going to university; lots of people I’ve talked to who care about this think that they’re going to definitely need £9000 a year up front in order to be able to go – and that’s clearly not the case. The system being proposed is actually better in many respects than the current position, and a huge amount better than the original 1998 scheme, which did have up-front fees.
@ Matt, because there are very few people actually interested in debate? I know that’s not what you’re hinting, but it’s as likely.
In office, but not in power. Does anyone take this man seriously any more? Reduced to interviews in the Independent on Sunday, the least read national paper: no one else takes him seriously enough.
“… fully engage with the policy and make it as good as you can, but the price of that being vote in favour …”
I keep asking if anyone can explain how they think the Lib Dems have improved the scheme recommended by Browne.
As far as I can see the proposals that Cable has come up with are significantly worse than what Browne recommended.
@ Grammar Police “Most of the people who say they’re “never voting Lib Dem again” didn’t vote Lib Dem this time.”
eh? How did you work that one out?
otherwise Steve Way 11:22 said it all
This is *not* a good policy.
Forget about all the tribalist blather about who introduced it, why, who signed what pledge, why and all of that. Yes, it’s important, but none of that matters in the end if the policy is good.
The policy is *bad*. The policy is *really bad*.
Is it properly costed? No. HEPI have correctly blown that out of the water. It’s not even very hard to do the sums yourself – just go onto the BIS website, look at the Ready Reckoner, and revel in the glory of a model that assumes that the graduate population is 50/50 male/female when it’s actually 43/57 and so, overall, will bring in less in earnings.
Is it necessary? No, not for the purpose stated. It does not save money. It costs money. The stated reason for bringing it in is misleading, and it contributes not one jot towards deficit reduction. It does make it far easier to privatise HE. If you think that’s a good thing, there’s a party just to your Right who are just for you. And you’ll still be wrong, but at least you’ll be in the right party.
Does it help the country as a whole? Debateable, but no, no it doesn’t, unless you think that graduates are a luxury the country shouldn’t have to pay for. They’re not. They’re vital for our continuing function as a developed economy.
Have they been thought through properly? Absolutely not, not one iota. There are unintended consequences all over them. For example, this proposal de facto raises the course fees for all postgraduate qualifications. All of them. Which university is going to charge their PGs less than their UGs? No, none of them. Congratulations, one part of your Government has just demanded that teachers need further qualifications to teach, and you’ve just demanded that they pay more for the necessary training. 4-5 years at 9k a year to become a teacher? Do you propose to massively raise teaching salaries, or do you just not want anyone to do teaching any more? And don’t get me started on PhDs. Congratulations, all our academics in the arts and social sciences will be from overseas, or independently wealthy.
Is it good politics? Let’s just ask the electorate. I think they’re shouting ‘no’
So, your duty is to vote against the policy, not because of your pledge, although that’s the moral reason, but because the policy is hopeless. It’ll be repealed in 4 years anyway (tops), and you’ll be associated with breaking your own party over a piece of legislation that was terrible anyway, which is the especially sad thing.
@Grammar Police
“because there are very few people actually interested in debate? I know that’s not what you’re hinting, but it’s as likely”
But they are not engaging in any of the threads, so I do not think that is necessarily correct.
You only have to look at the results of the Friday Live 5 over the last couple of weeks to see that posters numbers are decreasing dramatically.
It can not look good for the party when LDV get quoted in the likes of the Times, then when people visit the site to discuss Liberal Democrat Policies, there is a distinct lack of Liberal Democrat Supporters engaging with the public, Apart from a few Staunch Liberal Democrat supporters who seem to prefer to throw insults at anyone who questions coalition policies or indeed Libdems
The issue is not just tuition fees.
The real issue is that the Lib-Dems made a solemn promise that was cast in tablets of stone.
By their actions some of their leaders have demonstrated to everyone that they are nothing more than liars and opportunists who cannot be trusted.
I voted Lib-Dem at the general election but would never do so again.
They have brought themselves, their party and Parliament into disrepute and further damaged the credibility of the already discredited British political system.
They have increased the perception that the country is being run by liars, crooks and fraudsters.
It’s little wonder that the students feel disenfranchised and it’s to their credit that they are demonstrating and taking direct action.
Dave Page,
I think you’ll find that rather more than 104 of may’s libDem general election candidates have petitioned the 57 who were elected asking them to honour the pledge which they all signed. last time i looked, a couple of days ago, it was 130.
Perhaps LibDem Voice would attach a link to this stream so tha twe can all keep in touch as the numbers rise.
Matt,
I don’t bother a great deal with the private forum. Usually, the open forum is the more active, and therefore more interesting. In any case, much of what people write on the private forum looks pretty indistinguishable from what they write on the public forum.
People take breaks in posting for all sorts of reasons. Often, no doubt, they just get busy with something else. However, some people do seem to have gone quiet recently. I suspect that there is some very sensible long hard thinking going on!
@Dave Allen
Thank you for your answer I appreciate that.
My only concern was that the party was pulling down the shutters on the outsiders,
Not good people like yourself though of course.
Maybe u r right and people, they are just taking time out to think, i hope that is all it is, as we need people like them to get through to their MP’s
They are not going to Listen to Labour Trolls like me lol.
Thanks again 🙂
P.s I enjoyed your article https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-tuition-fees-our-moment-of-truth-22284.html#comment-155622
I must admit tobeing a pretty soft, left wing Tory, but am full of admiration for the Lib Dems for having the courage to form part of the coalition government. The alternatives of an obviously ineffectual Labour goverment led by insignificant leaders, or a Tory government with the risk of being hi-jacked by right wing views are not worth rhinking about.
The present administration in general is hitting the right level with Ken Clarke formulating enlightened views, William Hague possibly being forced into being a lot less anti-European trhan I had feared, and many proposals defdinitely showing the moderating influence of Lib Dem opinions. Thed result being the definite feeling that people are expected to help themselves and others by their own efforts, not be dependent on Government (the Big Society) without the wholesale Nast Party tendency that coluld have happened.
The Sudent Fee discussion is obviously deep felt, but discussikons with “the man in the pub” reveals limited support of students. Unfortunate that they should have to pay more, but recognition that the payment is put off until earnings can stand it. Also the debt is probably less than many would incurr in buying a car or going on holidays. The £9k is a top figure, not a definite figure and will probably not be reached by most students.
Ideally fees should be largedly covered, but in the present economic situation, something has to give. The Lib Dems were uwsise to make promises before the electikon without access to all facts, and probably feeling safe that they could comment but not have to take the responsibility of having to stand by their comments. Now they have to, but they are not in power as Lib Dems, but as part of a coalition and need to swallow their pride, support the administration as part of the common good, accepting that the alternative would be many times worse. Accept the rise in student fees as a necessary evil and work towwards easing the burden as a priority as soon as rthe economic situation will allow.
In the meantime it may well be worth considering if the great incrfease in university education is in fact the correct way to go, simply producing more graduates for less jobs, with schools measuring their success by the number of students they send to university rather than equiping them for work and life in general
“Also the debt is probably less than many would incurr in buying a car or going on holidays. The £9k is a top figure, not a definite figure and will probably not be reached by most students”
It usually helps to form an argument, if you arm yourself with the facts.
The 9k is the cost of 1 years education, * that by 3 for a 3 year degree and that’s £27k, on top of that add 3 years put on top of that £10’500 Maintenance Loan. And your looking at debt near on 40k. that’s significantly more than the cost of buying your average car, or enjoying a summer holiday.