This article is written by Matt Folker, who is a candidate for the chair of Liberal Youth. It is a response to this article which appeared yesterday.
Lib Dem Voice welcomes articles from any candidates in the Liberal Youth elections.
One of the things which believe makes Liberal Youth and the Liberal Democrats so special is that the Chair or leader of the party does not determine the organisations policies, indeed no one member does. The policies of the organisation are and should always be determined by conference, the beating democrat heart of our organisation. Therefore I would welcome any motion to the next Liberal Youth conference (this autumn) on if we should change our view on tuition fees, and should the motion come which, perhaps it should, I will be speaking against it until I am blue in the face and am being politely told by the chair of the debate that my point has been heard!
And here is why…
Education is a right. To me, this seems one of the most obvious ideas that underpin my being as a social progressive. Any individual, regardless of background should have the right to try and better him or herself. This has huge benefits for society as much as anything else, lest we forget that Liberal Democrats seek to create a society “in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance and conformity.” What better a way to achieve this goal that through education that is open and accessible to all.
Now it is a given that this country is, from an economic point of view, sailing on troubled waters. A £160billion national deficit is nothing to be sniffed at. It is for this reason that the party adjusted its policy to scrap tuition fees over the course of a parliament.
Ultimately though, as soon as we can afford it, there are economic benefits to scrapping tuition fees. Not only is the burden of debt upon young people morally wrong, but it also limits the amount of investment that these young people can make in the private sector through spending. In a globalised economy, we have to accept that there are areas where we cannot compete with the likes of India and China. By setting out our stall as high-skilled economy we can create a niche in our market – the Green technologies Chris Huhne is advocating in government are a clear example of that. But we can only achieve this with a strong, highly trained economy. The key way to do that is through Further Education. For some people, that might not mean University, it may mean the appropriate skills and training in Higher Education. But the message is clear, for our economy to thrive this education should be open to all, not just those who can afford it.
What we must not do is allow ourselves to give up the ideal of scrapping tuition fees. Under Labour tuition fees increased from just over £1000 to £3225. This is proof that once tuition fees are in place, then they rise, cutting more people out of education as they go for fear of the financial implications that come with studying for a degree. It is very easy for those who can afford to pay for a University education to argue that those who can’t, should. The figures are stark – the introduction of top-up fees in 2006 saw the proportion of applications from lower-income backgrounds fall, particularly in relation to those from the highest-income backgrounds.
If we waver in our goals, then who will be there to fight to scrap fees? If nobody takes up the mantle then the goal will slip beyond grasp! Liberal Youth has long been held as the conscience of the party. If Liberal Youth sells out on its principles then who else can we rely on?
What we must also do is make sure that MPs who signed the pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees honour their word. We must make sure that the government knows that there is enough resistance in Parliament to not try and push through any fee hike recommended by the Lord Browne report.
I therefore urge you to fight for what is right should the debate come and in the mean time, it is still worth putting your backing behind the amendment our current Chair, Alan Belmore and I put forward at the special conference in Birminham. The pledge can be found online and every signature helps us to ensure that our MPs support students and keep their pledge not to increase tuition fees.
This policy goes to the heart of being a Liberal Democrat. That’s why we’ve found so much support over the last year for keeping our fees policy. It is clear to me, as I believe it is to the vast majority of the party. Education should be a right, not something you should owe the government for. That principle is right, FPC developed a formula so it can be implemented and we must not hesitate to stick to our guns on tuition fees, because we carry the banner for not only the students paying fees, but also those locked out of education because of fees.
We have an unprecedented opportunity now we are in government to see the changes we have all wanted for a long time. However, we as Liberal Democrats should remain Liberal Democrats and not be afraid of distinguishing ourselves from our coalition partners. Selling out on fees would do just that. In 5 years time, we need to show the electorate that we are not just a smaller version of the Conservatives. Higher Education funding can be one of those issues, but it needs organisations like Liberal Youth not to desert its principles for that to be achieved.
I hope that whoever wins this election, the party will not lose Liberal Youth as its conscience.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1297
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Brexit putting England and Wales tap water safety at risk
Regional Candidates Committee - let the verwaltung* commence (but not until the New Year)
Should Labour move to the right on immigration? The Week in Polls
4th Dec
David Garlick
Simon R
Mick Taylor
Diana Simpson
expats
14 Comments
This is an issue on which I feel that we may be better working along side the NUS to achieve. If we are to ever rid our universities of the dreaded tuition fees then surely funding via a graduate tax is the only fair and logical way in which this can be achieved. to charge the entire population for our universities via general taxation is grotesquely unjust, and punishes those who never had the opportunity to go to university as well as those who have had to pay the fees.
Without a doubt tuition fees should not be at the frankly unacceptable level they’ve reached (£3,290 for the next academic year!), and I’m somewhat surprised that in the coalition negotiations we agreed to give up one of our most important policies…
Nevertheless, I do hope Liberal Youth will continue to apply the necessary pressure. We have every incentive to do so, as unfortunately we’ll be ones graduating with a £20,000 debt burden. And Matt I think you put it best when you say, “If Liberal Youth sells out on its principles then who else can we rely on?”
As anyone who’s had involvement with NUS can tell you, it’s not great as a student campaigning organisation. The results of an organisation run by Labour students with a few SWP thrown in. The new president doesn’t seem to be changing tact, continuing to attack the Lib Dems while remaining silent on Labours own position on fees.
Nice post Matt, goes with my own thoughts.
I agree with much you say but when you say “Education should be a right, not something you should owe the government for” what you are actually saying is that you have a right that other people must pay for, and as is said above, those others may be those who had no opportunity to enjoy higher education. Govt only has money that it gets from voters. So you need to convince voters (not students, libdem members and those already on board) that you are right and the cost is worth paying.
I like this guy better than the other guy.
I agree with Andrew. 😀
NUS are Labour. They have been Labour, continue to be Labour and will be Labour as long as that organisation remains nominally socialist. They’re, in short, a bunch of red-to-the-fingertips die-hard union officials who have totally failed the students of this country. They’re despised by half the student unions in the country, who only remain with them as they provide supplys for just about cheap enough to warrant the stupidly high fees they charge (something like £25,000 a year for Aberystwyth) for yearly membership.
Unfortunately, Liberal Youth in recent years has been regarded as being in its death throws. It is an organisation wracked by immature student politics and, worse, petty rivalries. It badly needs to push the reboot button and have somebody with a clear goal at the helm – namely, the goal of making sure that all those students and young people who voted Lib Dem this time around vote Lib Dem next time around.
If I was part of Liberal Youth (I’m too old) this would have won my vote, I was pretty worried that candidates for Liberal Youth Chair were arguing in favour of Student Fees
NUS is nominally socialist?
“NUS is nominally socialist?”
More a training ground for Labour hacks, and certainly pretty poor value for students.
So it’s basically the same as Parliament then.
*From the author of the article in question*
I feel the need to clarify a few points about our original article. Firstly, we’re proud to be part of a truly democratic party and respect due process at all times. What we are calling for is a full and frank discussion about where we, as an organisation, want to take our policy on fees. If elected, we want to see research undertaken and wide consultation among our members on the subject. This would ultimately lead to motion being placed before LY conference, which of course would need a vote of support.
Furthermore, we agree that LY should remain as the conscience of the party. It is important that in coalition our MPs remember the principles of our party and the values we are all committed to. We do not, however, see this as an issue of conscience; we believe are current policy is both unjust and unrealistic, a tax-break for the middle-classes in all but name. By sidelining this policy in coalition, we have been able to achieve a truly progressive tax break, benefiting the poorest in our society.
It should also be noted that we are not in favour of tuition fees and would like to move away from the current system. As we stated in our article, ‘tuition fees unfairly burden students who may contribute to society following graduation yet earn significantly less than fellow graduates…[whilst creating] a worrying culture of debt.’ However, we feel that to achieve this we need to offer a credible alternative method of student contribution. Our current policy simply leaves us isolated from the debate.
Matt, you correctly identify that to compete with the likes of India and China in a global economy we need high quality institutions. However, to retain our universities’ world renowned status, we need additional investment. I fail to see how abolishing a student contribution would help to achieve this. It would be impossible to fund this investment through general taxation, particularly given the across the board public spending cuts that will be made over the next Parliament.
We agree that education should be a right for all. However, as noted in other comments a right should not necessarily be funded by taxpayers. For example, I have a right to procreate; however, I do not expect the state to pay to raise my child. Taxpayers already significantly subsidise our university education and to ask them to pay for all undergraduate degrees, which most students will financially benefit from, is unfair when vital public services will be facing cuts.
I would also ask what specifically differentiates undergraduate degrees from other forms of education that we have to pay for, such as night classes, post-graduate degrees or a number of vocational college courses?
Many thanks for your interest in our article.
With David Laws and the rest of the coalition trying to bully the BBC there is a definite need for a voice of conscience in our party.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/may/27/government-boycott-question-time-alastair-campbell
@John – Why should Alasdair Campbell, a former journalist who has never held an elected office, appear on Question Time as a representative of the Labour party. Asking the BBC to prefer an actual elected representative of the Labour party (they’ve asked for a frontbench member) over a not-very-missed party official isn’t ‘bullying’, it’s respecting the integrity of the programme. If Alasdair Campbell wants to be on Question Time let him run for office.
“NUS is nominally socialist?” – Not ‘nominally’ no, although as far as I know it has some sort of official role in the TUC. There is however a tendency for the left wing to be overrepresented as, knowing this fact, it is left wing student who are most active in pursuing delegate spots and many institutions which tried and failed to operate as ‘voices of reason’ over the years have disaffiliated from it; Glasgow, Imperial, Durham. St Andrews hasn’t been a member since 1975. Cambridge threatens to disaffiliate every so often. I went there with the presumption that I would be where I am in the political spectrum – left of centre – I didn’t realise that in NUS terms I’d be on the far right and I’d get to watch serious business effecting e.g. campaigning on top-up fees get delayed to the point it missed a guillotine because various SWP folk wanted to ‘ban military recruiters from campuses’ (they were asked if this would include the OTC. They didn’t know). A fair illustration of the relationship between the NUS and Labour is that during the election just gone in a ‘youth leaders debate’ Liberal Youth were represented by the Chair of Liberal Youth, Conservative Future by the Chair of Conservative Future and Labour Students by NUS President Wes Streeting (listed as such). I’m afraid to say I voted for Wes the year I was at NUS conference, because the other candidates were mental (and Elaine Bagshaw told me he was okay), and then I had my ballot paper nicked (possibly because I voted for the new constitution; NUS’s answer to the Lisbon treaty, possibly just ’cause it was there).
Why should Mr Campbell be excluded?
The focus should be on policy and why it is a good thing rather than personalities. That is the new politics