On the BBC’s World at One yesterday, Vince Cable was interviewed by Mark Mardell. You can hear the interview by clicking on the box below, and the full transcript follows:
Mardell: Well, Vince Cable is the Business Secretary and the MP for Twickenham from where he joins us now. The current system isn’t working is it, so it does need to be changed?
Cable: (The current system) is working very well and it doesn’t need to be changed. It’s working well on all different levels. We’ve got growing numbers of people want to go to university. We’ve got exceptionally large numbers of people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university and applying to go to university. Universities are very well funded relative to other organisations that depend on the public sector, which means they can provide quality education. And we’ve got a repayment system, which Martin Lewis very eloquently described a few minutes ago, is effectively operating like a fair form of graduate tax where higher earning graduates are paying more and those that earn under £21,000 don’t pay anything.
Mardell: And the Higher Education Commission said it was the worst of both worlds – everybody thinks they are getting a bad deal.
Cable: Well the Higher Education thing is one think tank with its own political agenda. If you get away from the politicians, and obviously we are going to criticise each other, and you look at a respected international body like the OECD who have done a comparative study of higher education across the developed world: Their conclusion was that Britain has the best in Europe – it is the only one that is financially sustainable, and it’s achieving all our objectives of getting more people who want to into higher education, and particularly people who haven’t historically been able to, and is generating good quality graduates and getting them to pay on a progressive basis.
Mardell: But we’ve heard that Labour’s figures add up as an alternative to what you’ve got, there’s nothing wrong with it, is there?
Cable: There is a lot wrong with it, and what is particularly – and I use the word carefully – but it is fraudulent about it….
Mardell: That’s a very serious charge…
Cable: It is. Because this tax on pensioners will not go to universities, it will go into the treasury and we know from all past experience the treasury will pocket the money, it will be used to reduce the deficit. There is no guarantee that that money goes to universities. Under our current system the money automatically goes to universities. So that, under the student tuition system and the graduate contribution, universities benefit directly. They would not under Labour’s system. It depends entirely on the discretion of future chancellors.
Mardell: Of course, your party has a tortured history in this business…
Cable: It has, yes.
Mardell: …and Ed Miliband said directly that tuition fees – the history of that – was one of the reasons that young people have such little faith in politics.
Cable: I think he is right on that particular point. And my party has a very tortuous history on it, and we’ve suffered badly – politically – as a result of making a pledge that we weren’t able to keep. But we’re not the only party that’s been in this position…
Mardell: But I mean Nick Clegg said that he was sorry…
Cable: Let me just finish the point – the Labour party has twice made pledges on tuition fees they’ve had to abandon. The Tories also had a free tuition policy that they quietly dropped. So we’ve all been in this space. And the thing is, as Martin Lewis very eloquently said in his contribution, we should all grow up and all learn from experience. And Ed Miliband’s just taking us and his party backwards.
Mardell: Nick Clegg said that he was sorry. You don’t sound very sorry. You seem to be saying that the saying that the system is working and you’re glad you changed.
Cable: Nick Clegg, rightly, and we all, apologised for the pledge. I certainly don’t apologise for the policy we’ve now got, because it is a good one, and it is sustainable and it achieves our objectives.
Mardell: Vince Cable, thanks very much.
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back on the campaign trail
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
Have resignations led to a rethink?
nigel hunter
Chloe
Abrial Jerram
92 Comments
Whoops, just moments after I’d said 5 separate articles is beginning to make you guys look ridiculous, another pops up.
Can hardly wait to see the next 5…..
I expect Labour will be delighted with the Lib Dems’ reaction to the announcement of their policy on tuition fees. I just do not see how the Lib Dems’ arguments can gain traction after the 2010 debacle.
Indirectly reminding voters of the 2010 broken promise is very unwise.
Well said MartinB.
I think the articles, and most of the comments, are subscribing to a view of education as nothing more than another market product. I think that, particularly for the University as an idea, that knowledge should be the guiding light for these institutions, not how much additional cashflow the human resources they produce to take up roles in the marketplace will get. If we take the view that the market rules, then we’re reduced to arguing just how much people should pay or be subsidised, and in that case, why have a top limit at all? We don’t for private schools. But if we think other values, like knowledge and learning for its own sake should be more important, then I think tertiary, like other forms of education, should be funded by the state/taxpayer.
@MartinB, should point out that LDVs Labour equivalent Labour List had 4 articles about the policy , the last time I looked.
@Philip
“I expect Labour will be delighted with the Lib Dems’ reaction to the announcement of their policy on tuition fees”
I’m not a Labour member so can’t speak for them, but as a Labour voter I can confirm that I am delighted with the Lib Dems’ kamikaze response. I only wish there were a lot more Simon Shaws in the world to spread the message.
I’m actually genuinely surprised by the Lib Dems’ strategy on this. For the past four and a half years they’ve been telling us that they didn’t really want to increase fees but the nasty Tories made them do it. With the election coming up, yesterday gave them the perfect opportunity to say that, while they may not agree with the details, they still agree with the principle of Labour’s proposed fees cut. Instead, they seem to be saying that the narrative of the past four years was baloney, and really they love massively high fees afterall. If voters were suspicious of anything the Lib Dems said about fees before, they’ll be doubly so now. This hardly seems like a smart way of winning back voter trust.
If a Labour-led coalition is the outcome of the election – and at the moment it looks at least as likely as any other result – then the Lib Dems have truly shot themselves in the foot, because any credit for reducing fees will be Labour’s and Labour’s alone now that the Lib Dems have made it clear they are a high fees party. It’s extraordinary that the Lib Dems have painted themselves into such a corner.
If I were a Lib Dem, I’d head out somewhere for the week-end and hope that the political agenda has moved on to something else by Monday morning.
It has been a pretty good week for the Labour party- almost all their opponents have had a public relations problem. They just need the SNP to announce a new policy of coalition with the Tories and they’ll have the complete set.
“Cable: .. it is fraudulent ….
Mardell: That’s a very serious charge…
Cable: It is. Because this tax on pensioners will not go to universities, it will go into the treasury and we know from all past experience the treasury will pocket the money, it will be used to reduce the deficit. There is no guarantee that that money goes to universities.”
Let’s deconstruct this. Cable is speculating that a Labour chancellor will not actually match increased tax receipts on pensions with increased funding to universities. Let’s be generous and call this a plausible speculation. (Actually, the truth is, of course, that all tax receipts go into one big pot and all government spending emerges from the same pot. It is broadly un-knowable whether one particular tax receipt should or should not be identifiable against one specific item of expenditure.)
But it could also be an incorrect speculation. Cable simply does not know what a future Labour government will do. Quite plausibly, if the universities scream about their poverty because of the reduced fees, and the Labour Chancellor has some extra tax receipts with which he could compensate them, then he might just decide to do that thing – as he said he would.
Cable called it FRAUDULENT!
That is such a disgraceful overstatement. It demeans the man who made it – a man I used to have a great deal of respect for. Vince Cable should have stuck to being an intelligent economic commentator. In that role, he could have given the likes of Peston a good run for their money. Instead he went into coalition politics. That has wrecked his life.
Paul Barker: “(I) should point out that LDVs Labour equivalent Labour List had 4 articles about the policy , the last time I looked.”
You don’t say! What next?
“Maggie Thatcher Speaks Yet Again About Falklands War!”
“Mourinho Still Banging On About the Same London Football Team!”
“Huw Edwards – Can’t Get Away From Him – Monopolising the News All the Time!”
@paul barker 28th Feb ’15 – 11:17am
“@MartinB, should point out that LDVs Labour equivalent Labour List had 4 articles about the policy , the last time I looked.”
Mmm, Labour supporting blog writes 4 articles on Labour’s policy on tuition fees.
LidDem supporting blog writes 6 articles on Labour’s policy on tuition fees.
Pitiful really.
@Stuart,
Exactly. I asked it on another thread, never got an answer. But if the Tories had proposed this, what kind of articles would we be reading on here about it now?
For example, would there be 5/6 (not sure what the current count is) articles decrying it?
@Stuart: “I’m not a Labour member so can’t speak for them, but as a Labour voter I can confirm that I am delighted with the Lib Dems’ kamikaze response. I only wish there were a lot more Simon Shaws in the world to spread the message.”
I’ve supported the Lib Dems all my life; and financially at the last election. I was delighted to see them enter the coalition in 2010. What has happened since has utterly disgusted me and makes me ashamed to have ever supported them. I used to defend Vince Cable and consider him a highly competent potential chancellor; now he’s just an embarrassing disgrace.
The “keep on digging” hysteria of the Lib Dems reaction to this policy is just hammering nails into their coffin.
Oh, and this from Cable “I certainly don’t apologise for the policy we’ve now got, because it is a good one, and it is sustainable and it achieves our objectives.”.
Sustainable? It’s a policy that dumps BILLIONS of extra government debt on future tax payers because it’s so badly set up. How is that “sustainable”? And what objectives does it achieve, exactly?
@Stuart
“I’m not a Labour member so can’t speak for them, but as a Labour voter I can confirm that I am delighted with the Lib Dems’ kamikaze response.”
And similarly I’ve been delighted with the highly defensive position that you and other Labour supporters have felt you needed to adopt on this issue.
You and they give the impression that you recognise that Labour has got itself into a major bind over this, taking over three years between “announcing” the policy and coming out with the detail.
People like the IFS and Martin Lewis have given us the reason why Labour have taken so long. It’s that coming up with a fair student finance system is stunningly difficult. Labour have failed, and your hyper-activity on the issue, Stuart, demonstrates that you recognise that they have too.
I wonder if the Labour party would have been just as delighted if they had come up with a decent policy?
We’ve published one opinion piece about Labour’s new Tuition Fees policy. We then published a link and the full conclusion from the IFS report. We then embedded three interviews from the World at One, and published the transcripts. Two of those were independent views (from the IFS Director and Martin Lewis). So, there has been one opinion piece and four links to information/external comment. It seems that our readers have appreciated these posts as they have high readership and have attracted lively debate, which is the reason for having a website in the first place.
@Simon
“You and they give the impression that you recognise that Labour has got itself into a major bind over this”
There’s one flaw with your reasoning, Simon.
If the tuition fees argument is going the Lib Dems’ way at the moment, why have Lib Dems been queuing up on these threads to say what a great disaster it all is?
I genuinely feel sympathy for them. I believe that the majority of Lib Dems probably still support lowering fees, just as they did in 2010, but have been let down by terrible leaders and a few self-appointed apologists like yourself.
Jenny Barnes
I’m not a Labour member so can’t speak for them, but as a Labour voter I can confirm that I am delighted with the Lib Dems’ kamikaze response. I only wish there were a lot more Simon Shaws in the world to spread the message.
I live in a Labour-Conservative marginal constituency, and while previously a Liberal Democrats supporter I am disaffected with the current LibDem leadership and I very much prefer Labour to the Conservatives, I have been in a real dilemma over how to vote in the next election. However, I can assure you that as a university lecturer, what Labour is saying here serves very much to dissuade me from voting Labour.
Sorry, but Vince Cable has it quite right. However much the current system of funding universities has damaged the Liberal Democrats for the support their leadership gave to it, it HAS protected universities from cuts to funding. It is very obvious to me that had we not had this system, universities would have taken a share of the big cuts other public services have had. It ISN’T bringing more money to universities, we who work in them continue to have below-inflation pay increases, but just look at the huge cuts made to local government, for example, to see how it could have been. And I believe it WILL be if university funding comes straight under government control again. Sorry, but the reality is as Vince Cable puts it, there is no guarantee this money will all go to universities, and I suspect immediate pressures on government finances mean the government will start seeing making cuts to this funding and saying to universities “you work out how to implement them”, just as has been done to local government.
Having had my job threatened in the past, I feel now that voting Labour means voting to put my job at risk.
You, Jenny and Stuart carry on living in your fantasy world. I live in the real world, and I have my job to protect.
I may be going mad, but in 2010 I’m sure £6,000 basic fees were promised by the coalition. They said they’d only allow £9,000 a year in ‘exceptional circumstances’.
What happened to that? Why is every university in the land exceptional enough to charge £9k?
Why is Ed fraudulent to promise £6k fees, when the coalition said £6k basic fees would be the highest amount.
@Stuart
“I believe that the majority of Lib Dems probably still support lowering fees, just as they did in 2010, but have been let down by terrible leaders and a few self-appointed apologists like yourself.”
I think you are mistaken if you think that many Lib Dems support the Labour proposal to direct 90%+ of the spending here on the most well off half of graduates. It’s not very progressive, is it?
Well, I count two Lib Dems against the Labour Proposal (Paul Walter, Simon Shaw) and one for (me). So Simon is winning at the moment. (I’m only counting verifiable Lib Dems here).
Matthew. “I have my job to protect”
That’s my point. If what you ar is a deliverer of market services, then fine. Let the tuition fees rip. Just don’t pretend that you are more concerned about learning, just an employee of British education plc. What would you do if keeping your job meant you has to teach things that you disbelieve?
@Simon
How is diverting money from people earning £150,000 to people earning a fraction of that not progressive? Do you know what progressive means?
I’ve got a feeling I asked you something similar yesterday but never got an answer.
@Philip Thomas
“Well, I count two Lib Dems against the Labour Proposal (Paul Walter, Simon Shaw) and one for (me).”
What I find interesting about these threads (six of them, with around 200 comments) is that not one person has even attempted to come up with a measured and sensible argument for why the Labour proposals are worse than the existing system. Vince Cable’s comments don’t count, because most of what he said was rubbished by the IFS.
Simon, over to you – can you actually list the reasons why you think this policy would make things worse than the present scheme?
I can easily list some of what I think are improvements :-
* Smaller debt for students
* Better maintenance grants
* A shifting of part of the burden from students to rich pension savers
* Smaller write-offs
@Mike Barnes “I may be going mad, but in 2010 I’m sure £6,000 basic fees were promised by the coalition. They said they’d only allow £9,000 a year in ‘exceptional circumstances’.”
Indeed.
Cable, Clegg et al said that, so maybe Labour’s level of £6000 is entirely consistent with what Lib Dems want.
But the official Lib Dem position is to “aspire” to zero tuition fees, so Labour’s £6000 is much higher than Lib Dems want.
But this week senior Lib Dems are telling us that Labour’s £6000 is much lower than Lib Dems want.
Tuition fees are like a twisted Goldilocks policy for Lib Dems, being simultaneously too low, too high, and just right.
@Peter Watson
“Tuition fees are like a twisted Goldilocks policy for Lib Dems, being simultaneously too low, too high, and just right.”
Good Analogy.
You forgot the rest of the story though.
Cameron said, whose been sleeping in my bed. Oh that’s right Clegg and Alexander
@Peter Watson
“But this week senior Lib Dems are telling us that Labour’s £6000 is much lower than Lib Dems want.”
Are they doing that? Who and where?
Paul Walter 28th Feb ’15 – 3:03pm ……?We’ve published one opinion piece about Labour’s new Tuition Fees policy. We then published a link and the full conclusion from the IFS report. We then embedded three interviews from the World at One, and published the transcripts. Two of those were independent views (from the IFS Director and Martin Lewis). So, there has been one opinion piece and four links to information/external comment. It seems that our readers have appreciated these posts as they have high readership and have attracted lively debate, which is the reason for having a website in the first place….
A riddle…… When is thread not a thread? When it’s a link to information/external comment…..
Verbal gymnastics!
OK expats. I was attempting an earnest explanation, but if you prefer, let me say that we’ll post about what we feel like here when we feel like it, and precisely as many times as we feel like it. Does that help?
@stuart Reasons (so far given, as far as I can tell) why the existing system is better than Labour’s proposals (I oppose it so I may have missed some nuances)
More money for universities (Labour claim they will make up the missing £3bn but this is not proven).
Less burden on the public purse (Labour claim they will make up the missing £3bn but this will involve additional borrowing).
Rich graduates have to pay more and this is progressive
Rich pensioners have to pay less and less tax is better than more tax/rich pensioners are already being unfairly squeezed by Labour’s other proposals.
Simon Shaw can no doubt reel off half a dozen I have missed!
@Paul Walter
May I say that if you hadn’t started threads about what the IFS and Martin Lewis had said, I and a lot of other Lib Dems wouldn’t have been aware of it. So thank you.
Contrary to appearances I’m not especially interested in the Student Finance issue. What I am interested in is that, starting with Vince’s pre-emptive strike reported on LDV three weeks or so ago, a lot of Labour apologists seem to have been very defensive about the whole issue.
Those of us who are experienced politicians (on both sides) know exactly what has been going on here. Nearly three and a half years ago Ed Miliband went for a cheap populist headline on the issue and he and Labour have spent the 40+ months since then trying to cobble together a policy that works. They’ve failed, and people like Stuart clearly recognise that. Hence his hyper-activity in posting to defend the indefensible.
@Philip
*I already referred indirectly to the first two when I pointed out that the IFS had rejected both of them.
*I don’t recall anybody expressing sympathy for the rich pensioners, but sorry if I missed that one
The third one you list (“Rich graduates have to pay more and this is progressive”) is the most interesting. One obvious response is that, since the burden has been shifted to people earning over £150,000, and some people at the bottom will be given better grants, this hardly makes the system less progressive. The people in the middle will still be paying massively more than anybody else, but this won’t be as bad as it is under the current system.
There are multiple articles, I’m pretty sure I saw a “hands off the rich pensioners” comment somewhere… I think I responded by pointing out that tax rises usually target people who have money.
Vince is right to highlight Labour hypocrisy but I think he needs to be careful linking manifesto commitments to the word pledge. Labour had a huge majority and could have easily kept their word as a party. Lib Dems who signed the pledge did so as individuals and it could have been fulfilled even when the official policy could not…
As for the word fraud, I think he really could have done better dismantling the policy and I would imagne he will not be repeating it in the commons where it would be considered inproper without proof – something that could only come with a Tardis!
Found it- over on one of the IFS articles Neil Sandison wrote “The problem i have is how often can you milk the same cash cow .ie wealthy pensioners Winter fuel allowances ,TV licences ,Consessionary bus and train passes.some form of the mansion tax and now student tuition fees .The public will begin to think that progressive parties are out to penalise those who save or make provision for their old age.
Those not paying fees before the introduction of tuition fees will disappear at graduation .”
Paul Walter 28th Feb ’15 – 9:18pm……OK expats. I was attempting an earnest explanation, but if you prefer, let me say that we’ll post about what we feel like here when we feel like it, and precisely as many times as we feel like it. Does that help?
Yes it does….Perhaps to further aid me you might give me an equally forthright answer on what is the current LibDem policy on tuition fees?
Yes the current policy is what we is in place as you can read from Vince Cable above.
Mar ’15 – 9:11am…..Yes the current policy is what we is in place as you can read from Vince Cable above….
Yes; that is what I read! However, you must excuse me if I seem unsure….
A little about.me.. I’m 71 and, apart from 1997, have voted Lib(Dem) all my voting life…As a LibDem (rather like an English cricket supporter) I’ve had far more bad days than good…..Stiill, I believed in our core values and, although never expecting a parliamentary majority, I hoped one day we’d hold the balance of power..
Well, as the old adage goes, be careful of what you wish for.
On Tuition fees I’m now told that the Tory model was the right one; on ‘top down’ NHS reorganisation we voted for the Tory model; on ‘Bedroom Tax’ the same…. etc. and not only did we vote for them , we actively advocated them….. I well remember “75% of policies are LibDem”
If I’m disenchanted, imagine how the rest of the voting public feel…..Well, don’t imagine, just look at our history since 2010… We have become so toxic that swathes of good, hard working councillors have been wiped out because of decisions taken at the top….
In conclusion, Please don’t tell me we had too few MPs to stop the policies of the most right wing Tory government in my lifetime. We had enough MPs to vote their policies through. And don’t tell me that things would have been worse without the LibDems in government…. When you’re drowning in 20 feet of water it is of little consolation to be told that it’s deeper further out…
Will I vote LibDem?…Almost certainly not…Who will I vote for? Probably Labour (or” none of the above”)
@expats
“On Tuition fees I’m now told that the Tory model was the right one”
Who told you that?
Isn’t it more correct to say that the current model is the Labour one? It was developed under 13 years of Labour rule from 1997 to 2010, and the precise current model is the (slightly tweaked) outcome of the Browne Review commissioned by Labour in 2009.
@expats Please don’t waste your vote. No matter whom you vote for, make sure you vote.
Supporting the status quo on tuition fees (even a very recent status quo) is a nice “conservative” (small ‘c’) stance. And my default position on issues I don’t care about is small ‘c’ conservatism. However, the party clearly cares deeply about this issue, so we owe it to ourselves to do more than just prop up the status quo unthinkingly (to be fair, I think Vince at any rate has thought about it).
Simon Shaw 1st Mar ’15 – 10:20am …..@expats “On Tuition fees I’m now told that the Tory model was the right one”
Who told you that?
Isn’t it more correct to say that the current model is the Labour one? It was developed under 13 years of Labour rule from 1997 to 2010, and the precise current model is the (slightly tweaked) outcome of the Browne Review commissioned by Labour in 2009….
I wish you luck “On the doorstep” with that approach…
@Simon Shaw
If the current model is a Labour one, what about the model being put forward by Ed Miliband? Which party supports that model?
@Simon Shaw
“It was developed under 13 years of Labour rule from 1997 to 2010, and the precise current model is the (slightly tweaked) outcome of the Browne Review commissioned by Labour in 2009.
So were the original tuition fees in 1998 all the fault of the Tories for commissioning the Dearing report? You do make some odd arguments, Simon.
So Mr Cable thinks that Labour’s policy for funding Higher Education is “Fraudulent”. Are the words ‘brass’ and ‘neck’ rather relevant here. The LDs are already facing electoral slaughter, and their response is to make things even worse.
expats
“On Tuition fees I’m now told that the Tory model was the right one;”
Well no. The Conservatives did not have a policy on student funding that I can find in their 2010 manifesto and Vince Cable was Secretary of State in the department which prepared the policy. And as it has led to higher numbers of students from less privileged backgrounds applying for university, it would not seem to be the usual Tory-type policy.
@expats
Based on your response to me, it seems that my initial assessment of you was correct after all.
Simon Shaw
idem
@Philip Thomas
“If the current model is a Labour one, what about the model being put forward by Ed Miliband? Which party supports that model?”
I’m assuming that Labour do. Do you really consider the new Labour proposal to be anything more than a minor adjustment to the current Student Finance System? For half of graduates we are told that it is PRECISELY the same, and the only significant difference is that some fairly high earning graduates will be better off under Labour.
To suggest that Labour are planning to change the model is an incorrect use of the word model.
@Paul Walter, that’s right: It was our policy! We had to force the Tories into it! Making the Tories accept the principle that individuals should pay for things not the state must have been the hardest battle of Vince’s career.
And I have a bridge I’d like to sell you!
@Stuart
“Simon Shaw – ‘It was developed under 13 years of Labour rule from 1997 to 2010, and the precise current model is the (slightly tweaked) outcome of the Browne Review commissioned by Labour in 2009.’
So were the original tuition fees in 1998 all the fault of the Tories for commissioning the Dearing report? You do make some odd arguments, Simon.”
I’m assuming that if you have 13 years of MAJORITY Labour government, they are able to come up with a model they approve of. Towards the end of those 13 years they wanted to tweak the model which is why they commissioned the Browne Review.
You only have to look at Labour’s current proposed (minor to most graduates) changes to be able to conclude that they basically agree wth the current model.
@DAVID NUNN
“The LDs are already facing electoral slaughter, and their response is to make things even worse.”
I’m interested in what you have to say. Are you implying that, until a week ago, you were planning to vote Lib Dem in May, but following the reponse by the Lib Dems (echoed, as it happens, by independent people like the IFS and Martin Lewis) over the last few days now you are not going to vote Lib Dem?
Why precisely is that? Is it that you are a prospective student who hopes/expects to be one of those very high earning graduates who are the only ones who will benefit from Labour’s largesse? Or maybe you are the parent of such a prospective student?
@Simon Shaw
“following the reponse by the Lib Dems (echoed, as it happens, by independent people like the IFS and Martin Lewis)”
Have you read the IFS report? They specifically reject most of the Lib Dems’ criticisms.
“Why precisely is that? Is it that you are a prospective student who hopes/expects to be one of those very high earning graduates who are the only ones who will benefit from Labour’s largesse?”
If Labour’s proposals are so bad, why are you having to tell so many untruths about them?
According to the IFS report, around two thirds of graduates will see their repayments reduced, and everybody whose parents earn less than £42,000 will get an increased maintenance grant. They don’t say what percentage that is, but clearly there will be substantially more than 70% of students who will benefit from this policy.
@David Nunn
“The LDs are already facing electoral slaughter”
Correct. This week’s polls show Lib Dems still flatlining at 8%. YouGov for “The Times Red Box” report this morning that two thirds of the public support Labour’s tuition fee proposals. Only 20% agree with the Lib Dems that fees should remain at £9,000 pa.
@Stuart
“YouGov for “The Times Red Box” report this morning …”
Would that be The Times that yesterday had a leading article headlined:
STUDENT POLITICS
Labour’s tuition fees plan is wrong in principle and wrong in practice ??
But Phillip Thomas, we are being told that the state pays the same or more under the 2012 policy…
Simon Shaw and Paul Walter
Is this policy not the same as the actual current Government policy with some other add-ons (increased grants etc.)?
Doesn’t the current policy allow for £6000 pa fees but is up to the discretion of the institution and, in fact, didn’t Cable say that more than 6000 would be the exception?
If the only difference is the cap then why are you getting in such a flummox about things? It is not really that radical a change as you are suggesting
The difference will come from general taxation, and to my mind, make the balance between student and state contribution fairer. I was always of the opinion the individual student contribution was too high and was ideologically driven by the Coalition to make the student pay……I am against this. I think it is intended to be an 80:20 split in favour of the student (although that will not be the case for decades)
Won’t a change of the cap also mean that the Government will be more transparent in their contribution? The issue with the current situation I have is that the Government hides their contribution behind future payments which may (or may not transpire to be the case).
I think on the ‘who benefits’ thing then any changes to the cap (and politically Labour were always going to do this; in fact I would also expect the Lib Dems to be doing some rewriting of their manifesto at the moment as I wouldn’t have been surprised if this was their plan as well) will benefit someone probably at the top
The thing is this is less important to those of us who believe the whole tuition fees story is wrong from the start and that any changes that remove the burden from the individual student is to be welcomed. Remember also those higher wage earners will be making more of a contribution through general taxation under this policy…..
@Simon Shaw “Isn’t it more correct to say that the current model is the Labour one?”
Isn’t it also correct to say that it was a model that Lib Dems opposed until after the 2010 general election?
@Peter Watson
Simon Shaw – ‘Isn’t it more correct to say that the current model is the Labour one?’
Isn’t it also correct to say that it was a model that Lib Dems opposed until after the 2010 general election?
Abolutely correct. Do you agree with me that the current model is essentially the same model as what Labour had?
@stuart moran
The thing is this is less important to those of us who believe the whole tuition fees story is wrong from the start and that any changes that remove the burden from the individual student is to be welcomed.
Even though it’s the most well off half of graduates that Labour will be removing the burden from? The slogan is: “Labour comes to the aid of the rich”.
And I always assumed you were more on the left of the political spectrum than the right.
I am a Lib Dem member and I used to be a Councillor and Chair of Housing but am unable to be active any more due to illness. I was appalled at the Leadership breaking the party’s word over tuition fees but nearly 5 years on and I am glad to see such a robust response to Labour’s proposals. I think Labour thought we would be too embarrassed to criticise their policy so strongly but at last we are capable of strong rebuttal as the present system isn’t preventing students from poorer families from becoming University students. I’m not sure whether we are looking at maintainance grants but they could probably do with some improvement .
Yes we are looking into the face of heavy cannons wielded by an electorate which cannot forgive us for breaking our word but can anyone really justify help with student fees when disabled people are no longer receiving the benefits they need to survive and those on low incomes can’t afford to eat ?
So I’m glad we have all our guns blazing. If we’re going out let’s do so fighting and fighting to improve conditions for the poorest in our society as well.
Simon Shaw
I think you have no idea what you are talking about…..
Please read and try to understand
Can I ask did you go to University again……? You seem to have a problem with students and seem to like the fact that the bulk of the cost of HE falls to them as individuals. Did you go yourself? I did, degree and PhD fully funded….thanks to the British public
I don’t think it is right wing to thing that the state should value education and pay the bulk of it…..what is difficult is when someone puts in place a badly designed policy. Labour have moved a very tiny degree in the right direction, but as always, are too timid!
Any move to reduce the cap will benefit some people at the top more, just like the increase of the personal allowance will do the same….I have yet to see many LD disown this policy for the same reasons though!
I think you are on course for a Richard!
Stuart Moran: A step in a more progressive direction might have been to raise the threshold. Miliband’s proposal does nothing for poorer graduates and nothing for the principle of universal provision of Higher Education, in fact as the proposal stands it removes money that is currently earmarked for outreach to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
You want HE to be free, so would I; moreover I have no evidence that if possible Simon Shaw would not welcome it too. Whether Simon is or is not a graduate is surely not particularly relevant, unless your objective is to personalise the discussion and introduce ad hominems.
The problems in funding HE are that most politicians do not seem to believe that the public is willing to accept the increases in taxation and that centralised state funding is unhealthy for the work of universities.
Martin
Simon Shaw has been very much against students throughout his comments – I think he should be clear on what his background is. If he is a graduate it would explain why he may be against retrospective taxation, if not it could suggest he has a chip on his shoulder!
I think openness can help inform – what is wrong with the question?
You do not address the fact that the Labour policy is in fact the same policy as the current mob in charge but with a lower cap – one that Cable said would be the norm back in 2010.
Are you also so naïve to think that just messing around with the repayments on a 9000 tuition fee would make the same headlines? We are in politics and a headline cut in tuition fees was always going to be the Labour approach – is the upset from the Lib Dems based on the fact that they were planning to do the same?
We are in an election year:
Labour announce a cut in headline tuition fees
Labour announce an increase in grant
LD go on the tv saying that it is wrong to cut tuition fees (Ed Davey was quite clear on this)
Everyone remembers 2010 and laughs at the LD
People wait for the LD manifesto to see how they explain why they cannot cut tuition fees
It is smart politics from Labour…and don’t moan about it – Alexander and Clegg in particular have not been shy of bending the actualité with some of their comments
Who do you think wins?
People are overlooking a rather obvious fact when they complain that Labour’s policy “does nothing” for poorer graduates. (Apart from the fact that they are also overlooking the impact of the improved maintenance grants for poor students – it’s strange they don’t want to talk about that)
What people are overlooking is that the 2012 system already provided help for lower paid graduates in terms of repayments. There were ways in which it did NOT help them (such as scaring 2.5% of 18 year olds off from applying, according to UCAS), but just looking at the payments, low-paid graduates were helped.
As far as I know, nobody has actually criticised that aspect of the 2012 scheme – it was the one good thing about it.
The people who were really hit disproportionately hard by the 2012 system were graduates on average earnings. They saw their total repayments sky rocket. High earners (over £41,000) were not hit nearly as badly. Much of the criticism of the 2012 system (e.g. by myself in the last thread a couple of weeks ago) was that the extra burden put on this middle-income group was ridiculously harsh.
In that context – Labour’s proposals make perfect sense. They are helping the people who were hit hardest by the 2012 reforms, while still finding some extra help for students from poor backgrounds. These people – the average earners – will STILL be massively worse off than they would have been under the pre-2012 system, so to claim as Simon does that Labour is showering them with “largesse” is patently absurd. Since when is handing somebody an £18,000 debt an act of generosity?
The big undesirable side effect of Labour’s proposals is that high earners will also benefit (but will still be much worse off than pre-2012). That’s the trouble with tinkering round the edges of a conceptually flawed system. Douglas Alexander was hinting a few weeks ago that Labour’s proposals would be a temporary measure in anticipation of a much more fundamental review of the system. The one big disappointment of Labour’s announcement is that I don’t think there was any mention of that.
@Simon Shaw
“Would that be The Times that yesterday had a leading article headlined:
STUDENT POLITICS
Labour’s tuition fees plan is wrong in principle and wrong in practice ??”
That’s it. Game over. The Murdoch press hates Labour’s proposals, so Labour must be on the right lines.
@Simon Shaw “Do you agree with me that the current model is essentially the same model as what Labour had?”
I have made the same point many times. The Coalition took Labour’s model and made it worse for students in every way except for increasing the threshold for repayment. The interest rate was increased and applied earlier, the repayment period was extended, and the size of the loan was increased.
I do not remember any Lib Dems before the last election saying that Labour’s system was fine and it just needed a bit of “tuning”, but that is what it sounds like now. Thanks to Lib Dems in government, the Labour model denounced by Lib Dems in opposition is the only game in town.
Well I’ve learned a lot today….The tripling of ‘Tuition Fees’ was not a Tory policy (because they didn’t have one)….It wasn’t a LibDem policy because we promised to abolish them….So that just leaves Labour….
By the same reasoning surely, as Cameron promised no ‘Top-Down’ reorganisation of the NHS, it couldn’t have been their policy…It wasn’t LibDem policy either…So presumably that’s Labour again…
Bedroom Tax???????
Do we really expect the electorate to buy any of this?
@Stuart
“That’s it. Game over. The Murdoch press hates Labour’s proposals, so Labour must be on the right lines.”
If you don’t like The Times, why don’t you try The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/feb/27/labour-ed-miliband-tuition-fees
I normally avoid reading comments on The Guardian website as so many of them are boringly predictable, but I made an exception on this topic. I’m glad I did. A surprisingly large proportion of the 1194 posters seem to agree with my view that this Labour proposal is ridiculous populist nonsense.
When Labour fail to convince even Guardian readers you know they are in trouble (as I suspect you also do).
Simon Shaw
Which party did the Lib Dems support at the last election, and who do you think the support now?
If you think they support Labour then I suggest you need to be a bit less naïve – no self-respecting left-winger goes near the Guardian nowadays – but you just live back in the past if it helps make you feel happier. Have you ever heard of ‘confirmation bias’? I doubt it somehow
One word when it comes to the press and Labour: Leveson!
@expats
“Well I’ve learned a lot today….The tripling of ‘Tuition Fees’ was not a Tory policy (because they didn’t have one)”
Except they haven’t tripled. According to what some Labour-supporting posters on LDV gleefully claim, the current system doesn’t cost the state any less than the previous (Labour) system.
Personally I don’t have a problem with that as it simply reinforces my argument that the new system is (marginally) better and fairer than Labour’s as it has slightly reduced the financial burden on low earning graduates, balanced by (most) high earning graduates paying more.
Simon Shaw 1st Mar ’15 – 4:37pm …..expats“Well I’ve learned a lot today….The tripling of ‘Tuition Fees’ was not a Tory policy (because they didn’t have one)”
Except they haven’t tripled. According to what some Labour-supporting posters on LDV gleefully claim, the current system doesn’t cost the state any less than the previous (Labour) system.
Personally I don’t have a problem with that as it simply reinforces my argument that the new system is (marginally) better and fairer than Labour’s as it has slightly reduced the financial burden on low earning graduates, balanced by (most) high earning graduates paying more.
AS I’ve said before, try selling that on the doorstep…..
@Simon Shaw
“If you don’t like The Times, why don’t you try The Guardian”
A news article full of quotes from George Osborne and Vince Cable? How disappointing – I was hoping George and Vince would see the light and support a reduction in fees!
First comment I read was by some guy quoting a lengthy Daily Mail article apparently in full. Is this typical of Guardian website commenters?
@stuart moran
“no self-respecting left-winger goes near the Guardian nowadays – but you just live back in the past if it helps make you feel happier.”
Is that a fact? So what newspapers do “self-respecting left-wingers” go near these days?
Maybe it’s The Independent? If so, what do you reckon they think about Labour’s long-awaited (i.e. 42 months!!) proposal? Have a look yourself: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/row-within-labour-party-over-who-benefits-from-student-tuition-fee-cuts-10076231.html
“Row within Labour party over who benefits from student tuition fee cuts”
Stuart
It is under Rusbridger
There is only the Mirror that supports Labour…..despite what Simon thinks happens in the little world he resides in
A thought:
When people like stuart moran and Stuart claim, in relation to Labour’s recent Student Finance proposal, that:
– Martin Lewis can’t be trusted
– The IFS have got it wrong
– The Guardian is written by dubious people and read by even more dubious ones
you can’t help thinking that they recognise that the wheels are about to come off Labour’s wagon on this issue.
stuart moran: Who do you think wins?
Obviously not poorer graduates nor poorer prospective graduates, nor in all probability the universities.
But why give a toss if you think this is to Labour’s advantage?
By the way, why have I seen nothing in Simon Shaw’s comments that is “against students”? In what sense “against students”? I think you may be making the assumption that you are ‘for’ students; Simon Shaw is arguing against your statements so therefore he must be “against students”.
Simon Shaw
I am not bothered if there is a row in the Labour Party to be honest…..all political parties can be described as ‘rowing’
How split are the Lib Dems on this subject – difficult to tell because no-one has any idea what the policy is and I think the 21 MPs who voted against the current regime are not that happy!
I am not sure what the time you keep mentioning has to do with anything – no opposition announces any policies until just before the election….
I have no party affiliation but I am pleased to see tuition fees being reduced – I would rather more was done but I also understand Labour have to try and win the election so understand why they have focused on headline tuition fee level – just like your party did! Even though they were not telling the truth
You tell me now what your desired policy would be and then we can compare it with what your party actually comes up with?
As to ‘where do we left-wingers go’ – well we do not go to newspapers owned by tax dodgers, oligarchs etc – we get our discussion and news on-line in blogs. Do you not understand this is what is happening in the real world?
Martin
No in this thread but I refer you to the previous threads where he makes a lot of noise about non-university attendees paying for HE as being unfair!
I don’t necessarily support Labour – I was explaining why it makes sense from political point of view – your party does it as well so don’t get on a high horse!
I find it pointless arguing with you on this now
All I do is look to see how a party can go from saying absolutely no to tuition fees in 2010 to seeing nothing less than 9K is even considered despite the leadership saying 6K would be the norm
I think your party has now demonstrated itself to be in complete disintegration and I wonder if the upset is due to the fact you were going to do the same thing and have been beaten to the draw?
I agree that it would be much better if every single policy was progressive in the way you describe – I assume now that you are going to call for a reverse to the threshold increase for income tax seeing the main beneficiaries are the rich?
@Simon Shaw
Fascinating though your interest in Guardian BTL comments is, it would be a lot more interesting if you’d answer the rather pertinent questions I asked you in the Martin Lewis thread :-
https://www.libdemvoice.org/ifs-labour-plan-will-not-make-any-difference-to-repayments-by-poorer-half-of-graduates-44830.html#comment-340383
Or are you afraid to?
– Martin Lewis can’t be trusted
I haven’t said that (though I pointed out some flaws in his articles). On the contrary, he takes the same view as me on many aspects of student finance – such as hatred for the Tory/Lib Dem system.
– The IFS have got it wrong
Again, never said that – in fact I’ve quoted many times from their briefing note. The IFS report is a balanced piece and nowhere near as anti-Labour as you imagine. I’d urge everybody to read it in full. As I pointed out right at the start, the IFS categorically reject almost everything Vince Cable said.
– The Guardian is written by dubious people and read by even more dubious ones
Are you saying that ISN’T true?
@stuart moran
“As to ‘where do we left-wingers go’ – well we do not go to newspapers owned by tax dodgers, oligarchs etc – we get our discussion and news on-line in blogs. Do you not understand this is what is happening in the real world?”
Really, so left-wingers don’t read newspapers or look at newspaper websites? I didn’t know that.
In these “on-line discussion and news blogs” is there more support for Labour’s plans than is to be found among the (admittedly) right-wing Guardian and Independent readership? Perhaps you could provide some links, as I wouldn’t know where to start.
Simon Shaw
I do not want to be clickbait so only go where I want
I am happy to help fund this website every time I use it through adverts but will not do so for the papers because I do not want the to get richer
Funnily I would rather buy a hard copy because they lose money on them!
There is a lot of support for Labour’s proposals and also some disappointment at how timid they are – whatever they are far happier than with the right-wing LD and Tories
The main unhappiness comes from the Blairite fringe which I happily see now support Cameron and Clegg – all those Iraq war cheerleaders who can now find themselves a home with you guys. There are still some lingering about the fringes and trying to undermine Miliband as best they can but will disappear one day I hope
expats
“AS I’ve said before, try selling that on the doorstep…..”
Based on my reasonably wide and regular door knocking, tuition fees hardly ever gets mentioned.
@Simon Shaw
“is there more support for Labour’s plans than is to be found among the (admittedly) right-wing Guardian and Independent readership?”
Have you already forgotten about this morning’s Yogov poll showing two thirds of the public back Labour’s plans?
Here is some more Yougov research you might be interested in, taken just before the announcement :-
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/27/labour-university-students/
stuart moran: Where I am with you is in the depressing conclusion that a principle of education for all funded by the public purse has been lost. It is hard to see anyway back. I can see how we got to where we are, in terms of A to B to C to D to E, but find it hard to see that anyone would really have actually chosen to go from A to E. Clearly there was a hope that some kind of graduate tax might be viable, indeed such a tax was supported by the NUS, but when it became clear that a graduate tax was unworkable, Cable and Willetts came up with plan that contained a lot of similarities to a graduate tax, but was workable because it is nominally a loan.
So no, I am not particularly happy nor it seems are most or perhaps all on this thread. Clearly Miliband’s proposal is no improvement at all, though you have a point that an average fee closer to £6000 was first envisaged. However I think that you do have to accept that for al but better off graduates the extra £3000 is actually been borne by the state.
The public discussion distracts from an even worse problem in post graduate degrees, where support for students such as it is is very patchy and often results in the sort of loans that definitely do have to be paid back with interest.. Moreover I get the sense that universities are very greedy with some of their fees for post graduate qualifications.
@Stuart
“Have you already forgotten about this morning’s Yogov poll showing two thirds of the public back Labour’s plans?”
When was that poll taken as a matter of interest?
I’m assuming it was done within hours of Labour’s announcement and before the proverbial started to hit the fan.
Labour’s policy is a rather silly populist one, whose significant flaws become apparent on further examination. As a populist policy it was designed for nothing more than to score that initial popularity.
The really interesting thing will be when repolling is done in one or two or three weeks’ time. I’m guessing there will be a big swing against it by then.
@Simon Shaw
“Labour’s policy is a rather silly populist one, whose significant flaws become apparent on further examination. As a populist policy it was designed for nothing more than to score that initial popularity.”
Not any different to the coalitions policy then to chase the silver voter with the tax payer funded pensioner bonds with 4% interest on up to £40k for wealthy pensioners with large sums of money just hanging around.
A policy that is going to cost the tax payers Hundreds of Millions of Pounds to fund this give away to pensioners.
Pensioners are doing pretty well out of this coalition government, whilst the younger generations, those on low incomes, unemployed and disabled are being hammered left right and center.
The hypocrisy of some people in this party is reaching heights unimaginable
Thank you for the considered response Martin
I think we are pretty similar in where we would like to be but have slightly different views of how we should respond to the unlikelihood of it coming to pass
I have no problems with the extra money being borne by the state, and I also think the universities have to look hard at themselves – look at VC salaries for a start
As with all things there is a real confusion of what is the real value of things and how they should be funded
All I know is that HE costs X per year and all that is funded by us in some way or other – all this messing about with loans, fees etc just complicates the fact
I think it could be very much simpler than it is and if any money needs to be borrowed it is done so by the Government and any that is passed on to the student is done so at cost price with no profit being made out of them…..
Everything now, whether public or in private companies, seems to be how to play the accounting rules in order to play smoke and mirrors and pretend we are not paying for something we are
HE = taxpayer contribution + student contribution.
The former should be significantly higher than the latter and be visible and clear
Paul Walter 1st Mar ’15 – 5:27pm…..expats
“AS I’ve said before, try selling that on the doorstep…..”
Based on my reasonably wide and regular door knocking, tuition fees hardly ever gets mentioned……..
To paraphrase Whistler: “They will, Paul, they will,,,,,,
@expats
Have you, as it happens, engaged in reasonably wide and regular door knocking? I think the danger is that we are all tempted to think that everybody else in the country thinks just like us.
I’m with Paul; tuition fees gets a lot less mention on the doorstep than non-politicos imagine. In my area the big thing is the mere fact of a coalition with the Conservatives.
@Simon Shaw. But your MP voted against the increase in tuition fees, so why would the voters mention it to you?
I have not engaged in reasonably wide and regular door knocking, and as you have already pointed out I was canvassing in London which is different from the rest of the UK. I was surprised by the number of voters who mentioned tuition fees, I would have though after 5 years they would have other issues on their minds (some did).
While I am naïve I’m not quite naïve enough everyone thinks, like me, that tuition fees are an unimportant distraction from the real subject matter of the election, which is the Conservative proposals for abolition of human rights. And since no one (so far) has mentioned those proposals on the door step, I’m still fortified against that very natural prejudice…
@Philip Thomas
“But your MP voted against the increase in tuition fees, so why would the voters mention it to you?”
For two reasons I would say:
1. 80% to 90% of people we canvass will have no awareness that our Lib Dem MP voted against the increase in tuition fees.
2. For most of those that are aware, the fact that the local Lib Dem did that is only part of the story. It’s that “the Lib Dems” voted in favour (or so they have been told).
Jenny Barnes
Matthew. “I have my job to protect”
That’s my point. If what you are is a deliverer of market services, then fine. Let the tuition fees rip. Just don’t pretend that you are more concerned about learning, just an employee of British education plc.
Sorry Jenny, I am actually very much concerned with learning. That was why my job was threatened, because the funding system favoured by Labour had the effect of making universities put all their effort into research. Because I didn’t do that, because I spent so much time on getting my teaching right and making sure I did a good job for my students and so didn’t churn out research papers, I was told I could lose my job. Other lecturers in my university HAVE lost their jobs on that basis.
Students I teach can go out and earn more than I do in a few years after graduating on the direct basis of what I’ve taught them, and I’ve been doing it for 25 years. It used to be that as a university lecturer, you sacrificed high pay in return for job security, but now we get relatively low pay compared to what we could get with our skills if we really were working for a plc and no longer have the job security.
Still, universities are just about democratic enough that I do have awareness of our financing, and I know from this that actually we aren’t awash with money due to the tuition fees. That’s why I’m saying, tuition fees just pay what it actually costs. I’m telling the truth when I say that on that basis I am genuinely scared that if Labour wins the election and cuts tuition fees to meet its pledge, my job will be threatened.
Sorry, but I have to live and I have to pay my bills. So, don’t insult me because that’s an issue. If I lose my job, my life is wrecked. I don’t come from a wealthy background, so I have nothing else to fall back on, and sadly I may have the skills but I’m now too old to be able just to skip to a job in the private sector in the field in which I teach. My wife DID lose her job as a senior academic administrator, and was out of work for three years after that, because at our age it isn’t easy to get back in.
stuart moran
I think it could be very much simpler than it is and if any money needs to be borrowed it is done so by the Government and any that is passed on to the student is done so at cost price with no profit being made out of them…..
Yes, and I agree – but the Tories wouldn’t, or at least not without making universities bear the same cuts that other public services have had.
So, the LibDems trick the Tories into accepting something that at face value seems to meet the Tory ideal, but when you investigate it underneath is actually just the sort of generous public money support paid for by taxation which we agree is what we really want.
Do the LibDems REALLY deserve all that has been thrown at them over this issue for doing that?
“It used to be that as a university lecturer, you sacrificed high pay in return for job security, but now we get relatively low pay compared to what we could get with our skills if we really were working for a plc and no longer have the job security.”
University lecturers may have less security of tenure than before, but they are still far less likely to be fired than someone working in private industry. As someone who has spent my career in business and been fired more than once (good for the soul!) I should know… 🙂
The elephant in the room is the over provision of university places. No-one mentions this, like they don’t mention the unsustainability oft the NHS long term, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there waving its trunk, all the same. The bottom ten per cent of the University sector shouldn’t be dignified with the use of that name, and if those institutions closed no-one would be the poorer except for the staff who would have to find properly useful jobs. The students would be far better using their time in some more worthwhile way.
Not everyone can benefit from attending university and no-one has an entitlement to a university education. Why can this never be admitted?
In the interest of full transparency, my parents saved a lot of their salaries for me and my late sister. As middle managers in global multinationals, their salaries were (and are) nothing to sneeze at. So, I would probably qualify as “one of the rich students”, and I can tell you unequivocally that the present system is what favours the likes of me. Never mind investment bankers’ children.
First, upon my graduation neither I nor my partner will owe a single penny to anyone. It will all be paid off as soon as possible. I will be able to start my working life without a penny of debt. That is the advantage I have. My peers and friends will, however, have a mountain of debt until their forties or fifties, or longer if they don’t get a well-paid job. Anyone who says that banks and mortgage institutions won’t factor monthly expenses for student debt into mortgage decisions simply don’t live in the real world. This is in addition to whatever expenses and debt will pile up from paying daily living expenses during three or four years, or longer if they pursue Masters degrees and doctorates.
Second, this scheme is just another part of the policy to move public debt to private debt. While countries like Germany have recognised the damaging impact of tuition fees to the point where all the states of Germany now have abolished it, this country persists with it – and even argue for its merits. There are no merits with tuition fees, except as a divider in the usual attempt to increase inequality, and to cement the have-nots and the haves positions in the hierarchies. It is certainly not meritocratic in any sense, and that is what most of our partners in Europe have realised.
Third, I wish that the Liberal Democrats would give up this thing about tuition fees. What irks the electorate is not the tuition fees per se. If the party had gone into the election in 2010 proposing a graduate tax, the electorate would have factored that into the voting equation. If this party had campaigned on what you say now, the issue would not be the problem for you that it is. The reason why tuition fees are so damaging to you is that you lied about it. You pledged that you would resist it to your dying days, and then you quite easily changed your mind after the election. It appears that your leadership didn’t want to the policy, and didn’t fight very hard against the Tories when they wanted tuition fees. So, to conclude – the tuition fees are a problem for the Liberal Democrats because you lied about them.
Fourth, trying to convince the electorate that “this system is good, honest” just highlights the deceit before the last election. If you think this now, why didn’t you campaign on this back then? You can say that you wish you had campaigned for this, but that changes nothing, and just illustrates that you are for “politics as usual” like all the other mainstream parties. “No politics as usual”, which you also campaigned on, takes on a bitter irony coming from you lot.