Political parties can wither and die. It is important for any analysis of our general election performance to bear that in mind as we plot our strategy, because frankly the signs do not look all too healthy. We have lost our second place position in historic heartland seats such as Birmingham Yardley, Southport and Newquay and St Austell. It is more than possible that we could fall even further at the next general election.
Without a radical and liberal appeal to young people our party will not survive. This general election should have been our moment with 75% of 18-24 year olds voting for Remain in the referendum and the ghost of Eurosceptic Bennism leading the Labour party. At this critical juncture in our nation’s history only 9% of young people voted Liberal Democrat, many of them presumably voting tactically in seats where we are the only opposition to the Tories. We have already had a taste in Southport and Newquay and St Austell of what happens when people move from Labour-lite to the full fat version.
Our offer to young people must mean something more than haranguing them into voting tactically for us. I found myself pointing at bar charts far too often during the campaign to be sure that the young people who voted for us were doing so as a long term investment in our party. I left Labour and joined the Lib Dems quite soon after Trump’s election, because I found Labour to be moving away from social liberalism – with MPs on the right calling for immigrants to ‘assimilate’ and MPs on the left dealing in the economics of fantasy. I wanted to be in a party that valued individuality and choice, one which didn’t constrain the freedom of expression of immigrants and minorities to suit the zeitgeist.
Our party must show it has answers to the housing crisis, the mental health crisis, the insecure jobs market and reassert our social liberalism if we are to stand a chance of convincing young people to vote for us for anything other than tactical reasons. Our manifesto had some standout policies such as ‘rent to own’, and the introduction of an Australian style dedicated mental health service for young people and children. Having good policies is not enough if those policies are ones that can be easily gazumped by the Labour party or the Tory party on one of its ‘modernisation’ fad diets. Our policies must not only be innovative, but communicated as part of a broader vision of how life would be different for young people under a Liberal Democrat government.
Corbyn succeeds because he appears to offer young people authenticity and optimism. It is sad that his hard Brexit closet is bare and that he has slyly sold out so many of his socially liberal principles. Our party can and should take the mantle at the next election of offering young people an authentic, full throated liberal vision of our futures.
* Sam Foulder-Hughes is a King's College London Politics student and Lib Dem activist in Kingston
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Chase Park fair photos
Green and Lib Dem Southwark brings government closer to voters
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Mick Taylor
expats
Matt (Bristol)
Kira Collins
50 Comments
We also need to explain how the EU works and the good it has done and is doing and that we need to be part of in the future. Erasmus is a fantastic opportunity for young people. and European citizenship needs to be seen as valuable.
Could you list what social
Liberal principals Corbyn slyly sold out?
Usually when the subject of selling out is raised here it is with respect to the Coalition and the student fees. As you are talking about young voters I’m wondering what you mean ?
Just write off the whole student loan book. It’s no crazier than the right to buy.
We should remember that we won – we came a convincing first among young people – at the 2010 Election, before then dumping on this generation, such as by tripling fees, embracing stagnatory austerity, and propping up a Conservative led Government that was happy for society to turn into one of renters v landlords. I don’t know how bad things have to get before the Party addresses, rather than fetishises, its period in coalition with the Conservatives. This era – and the poor leadership the Party then endured – is largely a dead weight around our shoulders. We need to start to reconnect with the majority of cultural liberals in UK society who are broadly left of centre. We need to get back to being a Party of change that wants to distribute power and wealth. Or are we happy being a Party that struggles for relevance outside a small scattering of largely affluent suburbs?
Paul Pettinger – I remember thinking at the 2015 election that I had no idea who under the age of 45 would vote for the Coalition parties. Being fair to May and Farron my feeling is rather that their predecessors left them a bit of a time-bomb on youth. All Jeremy Corbyn has done is stepped onto ground that the other parties have abandoned. Let’s be clear – the Coalition told us that debt was a threat to the national fabric whilst loading it onto the young and simultaneously implementing a triple lock pension. Why would anyone young listen now?
There are aspects of the Labour manifesto about which I am, to say the least, doubtful. But full marks to Jeremy Corbyn for giving us real youth politics, not some kids’ stuff about ‘digital freedom’ and hopey-changey ecology.
Very good. There needs to be positive action to promote young Liberal Democrats if the party is to thrive and have a future.
Dave Orbison: You are being disingenuous, you read George Kendall’s forensic article, you even commented upon it; it clearly lays out how Corbyn would stand by Tory welfare cuts. Corbyn has long been and is pro-Brexit. This is definitely not OK for the young.
We certainly need to regain the youth vote as well as the pro EU tory and labour vote that has more in common with ourselves like yourself.
To my knowledge there is not a clear outline of the pros and cons of the various Brexit options including remain.
– With a lack of a vision by anyone on what Brexit means we should be showing how our manifesto/vision on each point relates to a more positive outcome within the EU vs No deal, Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit and Remain.
– What tool is there to aid ‘average Joe’ a means to see the best deal for them?
What must be consistent is for us to gain and reenforce the trust factor back to LibDem from the electorate, we must be clear, obvious, brave, proud, confident about the policies and the arguments behind them so that we focus on;
– What we can do, What we propose to do,
Attacks on other parties policies should cease as this gives us less air time to have the electorate focus on our positive vision.
– Leave labour and the conservatives to do the mud slinging.
Recognise other peoples arguments will benefit some people but show that our vision will benefit a majority, making us Safer, Healthier, Wealthier, better Educated within a UK lead EU.
Why shouldn’t immigrants assimilate? If they don’t want to why did they come here in the first place? Something to do with welfare payments maybe?
We must also lance the Student Loan issue. At the very least we should move to a Graduate Tax, and ensure that those currently with loans do not pay interest rates above bank rate.
It would be good to return to free university education, but to do so would harm university finances, and would not go down well with the general taxpayer.
Labour introduced fees, we need to give an alternative
Martin – the article states that Corbyn has slyly sold out on social Liberal policies.
There is nothing disingenuous in my question whatsoever. If you are referring to the issues in the manifesto, how can something that’s been published be sly?
More importantly what social Liberal policies are being referred to? I can’t think what this refers to, genuinely. So why not just answer the question?
Dave, As you well know things are best hidden in plain sight. Labour’s campaign plan for the youth vote is quite simple and is “If you want to sell out on the youth vote, write down you are going to do it, just don’t tell them.”
That’s sly.
Dave Orbison,
I think the article maybe should have said that Corbyn has not YET sold out on youth policies because he has not yet had to experience the realities of office when the money you thought you were going to raise from corporation tax disappears to Ireland and Luxembourg.. The worst possible thing for Labour with their present manifesto would be winning an election outright (cf. the Socialists in France…)
However as David Becket says, there is absolutely no point going on about recapturing the youth vote unless we return to removal of tuition fees – which a graduate tax would do, since once you break the link between the cost of an individual education and the amount repaid (ie. bankers repay far more over their tax paying career than teachers) there is no longer any need for fees for home students.
What is more, we need to get rid of the existing fees loans and replace them with graduate tax if we are going to regain the 30-something vote…
I agree with David Becket and Andrew McCaig we need to replace tuition fees and student debt with a graduate tax. We need to set out the rates at different income levels making it progressive. I would like the starting rate to be 1p and not start until the graduate earns above average earnings.
For students, why not keep tuition fees but pledge to bring back full maintenance grants, in order to encourage poorer students to go to university, concentrate on their studies, and live with dignity while they do so.
There are serious problems with a graduate tax. It becomes general taxation so you’re totally reliant on future governments funding universities properly (they won’t). It breaks the link between the student and their education, so students have less reason to choose their course wisely, and less power to demand quality education.
Politically, is a graduate tax really so appealing? Those who go to university are still going to pay. It’s just that a big chunk of them – doctors, lawyers, financiers – would pay their entire working lives. Is that going to win votes over Corbyn’s ‘I’ll scrap all fees and the money fairy will pay’? Is saying ‘you’ll pay but in a different way’ really going to win back those who think the Liberal Democrats betrayed them on this issue?
By contrast, maintenance grants paid for from general taxation are generous to students, more plausibly affordable and sustainable than Corbyn’s plan, and have some potential to serve progressive ends. You pay tuition fees to make sure you get a great education and because you benefit from that. The state supports you while you learn because we believe in equality and the social benefits of education. Isn’t that a more differentiated and appealing pitch?
Sam – this is a really good and important article. We used to be a party that was full of optimism and energy, and that appealed naturally to many young people. It wasn’t about policies as much as it was about being different from the Westminster class, the old-style two-party politics. We lost that spirit in the coalition. Whatever the benefits of coalition – and I believe there were some – we definitely lost that spirit, and Jeremy Corbyn has indeed moved on to that ground.
But we have to remember that these things have natural cycles. Corbyn may be riding high now, but he won’t be forever. We need to get that spirit back. As someone who has been a member since 1987 I have to say I have no earthly clue how we do it. It’s people like you Sam who need to grab the party by the scruff of the neck. We can’t have a commission of well-meaning middle-aged peers coming up with our youth policy – it has to be you, and people like you. So go for it. We’re all counting on you.
@RBH “For students, why not keep tuition fees but pledge to bring back full maintenance grants”
That is currently in the manifesto, in fact: “Reinstate maintenance grants for the poorest students, ensuring that living costs are not a barrier to disadvantaged young people studying at university.”
RBH
A graduate tax would certainly be more popular than our current policy. It was NUS policy for quite a while. It would attract more fair-minded students, and the key words are “abolish fees”, after that you can attack the Labour policy for helping rich graduates the most, and making the general populace pay for those who go to university..
Of course universities would not like it (I work for one). Fees allow them to charge much more for many courses than they cost to teach, while actually squeezing money for more expensive but vital courses like science and engineering where part of the cost is still paid by the government. Liberal Democrats can and should have a policy to support universities that goes along with graduate tax. I would definitely not try to raise all the money to fund university courses from graduate tax.
The biggest problem with the fees is they are too high. Leaving university with typical debts of £50k hangs over people for decades.. It worries parents and grandparents as well as students. Most countries have no fees or much lower fees and even in the USA fees are generally much lower for home State students.
With no fees there can be living cost grants for poorer students and also for the best students on undersubscribed but essential courses.
But if people just want to match Labour that is ok with me. I think people have not really twigged that our Party faces an existential threat over this issue. We have to claw back some votes amongst graduates or we will never again get above 10%. We now hold not one Labour-facing seat….
Good analysis
Parties flourish when voters, rightly or wrongly, believe that the party is on their side. This is usually a fragile belief, as the Lib Dems, a party once ideally placed to make such a claim, have discovered.
If the party campaigned for a Universal Basic Income, I think this would be very popular with young people.
A Universal Basic Income would benefit people of all ages, but it would probably benefit young people especially. It would mean that students would not need to take out maintenance loans to support themselves while at university. When they have finished their studies, the Universal Basic Income would enable them to spend some time gaining work experience through unpaid internships or voluntary work – an option that at present is only available to young people whose parents can afford to support them.
This article and some supporting posts are the reason we will NEVER get back to our 2010 position with the young and the radical in society…We, in 2010, presented those who trusted us with the mother and father of all lies. Seven years later all some can do is to try and tar Labour with the same brush….
Statements like, “Corbyn succeeds because he appears to offer young people authenticity and optimism. It is sad that his hard Brexit closet is bare and that he has slyly sold out so many of his socially liberal principles.” just attract the comment that it is accurate apart from one word…..Replace ‘Corbyn’ with ‘Clegg’
and those wantth
Paddy Ashdown looked at a universal basic income, as did the Greens. One of the candidates in the leadership election is an economist.
We wait for others to declare or rule themselves out. They should not wait until the final deadline for nominations. Tunbridge Wells is offering to host a hustings, as we did for Ming Campbell and co, and are looking forward to the debates.
Please will members try not to hold candidates to ransom on a favourite policy for the sake of one vote. We also have a democratic and participative conference operating under One Member One Vote.
I have argued for a universal income, and the removal of means testing, paid for by a sinlge rate tax on all income:
http://www.atkwanti.co.uk/tax/tax.htm
The response has been, let us say, unenthusiastic.
Richard Underhill
The relationship between basic income and the Lib Dems was stronger than “Paddy Ashdown looking at it”. It was party policy for a short period in the 90s. As I have pointed out before on this site, it was abandoned as “too costly” by a Conference under pressure from the late Lord Willie Goodhart – one of his most negative acts, in my view. Every time we get a genuinely progressive economic policy, we seem to abandon it under pressure from the majority more “orthodox” economic views in the party.
On a slightly different subject, internet freedom is something g that I think will cut through to the younger voter. It was sort of not talked about during the election but the Tory attempt to control the internet is as regressive as it was impossible to do.
If we can credibly credibly clams to be the party of internet liberty that will win support.
@ Frances Alexander,
We currently have Erasmus+.
Many young people post that this is a reason to stay within the EU. Why?
There is no reason why Erasmus plus, and indeed any other collaborative research and educational programmes cannot continue after Brexit if GB and the EU decides that it should. And as so called internationalists, why cannot we expand partnerships that replace Erasmus plus, with partnerships involving other non EU countries. The world does not end at the borders of the EU!
It has become painfully apparent that this party has taken an uncritical view of anything EU. In 2010, a HEFCE report ,found that the then, Erasmus programme, disproportionally benefitted, the already privileged, i.e. young, white, female, middle class, who are already academic high- achievers. As a House of Lords report found, ethnic minority, disabled. older students, students from non- professional backgrounds were less likely to be participants. Language competence also works against those culturally and socially less privileged.
Once more Liberal Democrats seemed, and seem, complacent when it comes to addressing Erasmus and Erasmus plus, extolling the virtues of the status quo. It is just another example of the ‘ everything in the EU garden is lovely’. And it makes individuals like myself unconcerned about leaving the expensive Erasmus plus, when leaving will provide an opportunity for money to be better spent on the design of bi-lateral international programmes offering greater social justice and equality of opportunity.
If you think that the Erasmus programme has succeeded in its aim of helping to forge a European identity, rather than it offering an expensive goody to the already privileged, check out the EU referendum results amongst the ‘left behinds’.
Sadly, in my opinion, the Liberal Democrats have become a middle class, niche party.
Dave Orbison, expats, David Becket, Michael BG Well, there are lots of policies that we can introduce:
– Free university education (funded by a graduate tax). (FIRST AND FOREMOST).
– Reestablish maintenance grants for students.
– Free bus tickets.
– Rent to buy.
– Improve and expand vocational training system. Require all apprenticeship programs to pay salaries like in Germany. This will shift a lot of young people away from unis. In Germany, only 27% of young people go to unis, whereas the figure for the UK is 48%.
Finally,
– Repeal Internet Surveillance completely. This will gain support from young people and all other liberals.
Besides, not relevant, but I want some new acts to deal with fake news and punish those who are responsible (like Daily Mail).
@ Expats,
Professor John Curtices new post election analysis has found that the Tories were the big winners in the collapse of UKIP.
He found that the Tories benefited from working class, UKIP and EU brexit voters. (60% amongst tory voters compared with only of 25% EU brexiteers amongst Labour voters).
The `Tory gain was offset by ‘a tsunami’ of support for Labour amongst ‘social liberals’ who oppose brexit, plus the lower middle class and young middle class professionals.
He states that, ‘In the commons we now have one party principally supporting ‘social conservatives’, and on the other side a party principally representing ‘social liberals’.
Having supped with the Devil without a long spoon, it is hardly surprising that those who still support the Liberal Democrats are struggling to find a political space that they can ‘exploit’. Negativity towards those who have stolen the ‘radical’ mantle, seems to be the only option.
Sam, good to hear a strong young voice speaking up for Liberalism. I’m also more pleased than saddened that so many young people voted for Corbyn’s Labour, they want a better, fairer life for everyone which is great. Personally I can’t see him giving them that which is why I’m a Lib Dem. Please join with other young Lib Dems to come up with policies that appeal and are achievable and make our leaders listen to you all.
Good article Sam.
I think you are on the money in stating “Our party must show it has answers to the housing crisis, the mental health crisis, the insecure jobs market and reassert our social liberalism if we are to stand a chance of convincing young people to vote for us for anything other than tactical reasons.”
We should not be trying to reverse the findings of the Browne commission on HE funding although as Andrew McCaig notes University fees are too high compared with most developed countries including home State university students.
As I said, we need to move more young people away from unis and to vocational training. By doing so, free universities will become totally sustainable.
And we will outperform Corbyn’s plan by promising income tax hike on all bands to abolish tuition fees. I personally want to re-establish the 50% top tax rate. The UK should increase average income tax rate to Germany’s level. Next, we can also add a hike in capital gain tax to 38-40% for investments below 6 years, 18% for investments over 6 years (i.e. Hillary Clinton plan).
Joseph Burke – sorry, we must find a new way to abolish tuition fee completely.
I prefer a graduate tax on all income bands, like the way we pledge to fund NHS, as well as re-establishing the 50% top tax rate. I want to raise UK average income tax rate to at least Germany’s level.
Not to mention Hillary Clinton’s idea of raising short-term CGT to 39% (no change in long-term CGT).
Negative campaigning is only suitable for issues where the alternative options are only the opposite ones, such as foreign policy, or Internet surveillance.
@ RBH
I would add to Andrew McCaig’s response that paying 9% of ones income over £21,000 is very high (which is why I want it to start lower and last for life) and I wonder if the revenue raised from a graduate tax could be allocated to a separate student debt account a bit like repayments to the student loans company. I worked up an example yesterday for someone who gets a degree and a PGCE ending with a debt of £36,000 (nothing for their maintenance) and they become a teacher. I have them having their debt of £54,710.82 being written off, a last yearly payment of £4,686.69 from their salary of £73,074. In the end they ended up paying £56,438.50 (and didn’t pay off the debt) and for the whole 25 years paid 9% of their income over £21,000.
I can’t imagine this person voting for us, nor would I expect the person’s parents. There might be other members of the extended family who would not vote for us. Just for students since 2012 I think this figure is over 9 million people.
@ Catherine Jane Crosland
The party’s working party on welfare benefits rejected Universal Basic Income. In the private forum I have suggested a Citizen’s Income at the Income Tax Personal Allowance rate for those in work and claiming out of work benefits with rolling it out during a five year Parliament to those aged between 18 and 26 The reason is to get the party to accept the principle and ensure no one on benefits is worse off which was a major criticism of a Citizens Income by the working party.
Clegg brought this havoc upon us. There is no way out for several years. Young people know we betrayed them big time. We ensured the “you can’t trust politicians” mantra has been overtaken by “you cant trust the Lib Dems at all”. I am amazed 9% of young people voted for us. It will take a generation or more before that terrible political act is put to one side. Every time Clegg appeared on Tv during the elction he ensured the youth vote was reminded of that act of political treason.
Thomas,
almost half of student debt is not expected to be repaid under current projections. With the general squeeze on earnings, graduates are not earning the kind of money that was projected. Outstanding student debt has reached over £100 billion eclipsing credit card debt by some way.
The Band of England has announced today that banks will be required to hold more capital in the face of rapid growth in lending on credit cards, car finance and personal loans.
We are heading back to a situation where public and private sector debt is spiralling out of control again and Interest rates will need to rise to curb inflation.
That is not a situation that will resolved by hiking personal taxes on graduates. They would have to be paying back double what they are paying now just to stop the debt rising further.
I think we need a big focus on vocational education in partnership with employers and higher apprenticeships. With almost 50% of school leavers applying for university, there are too many students taking out loans that they see little benefit from in terms of increased employment earnings – particularly for those that drop out or take non-vocational degrees.
Good article, in particular:
“I found myself pointing at bar charts far too often during the campaign to be sure that the young people who voted for us were doing so as a long term investment in our party.” and “Having good policies is not enough if those policies are ones that can be easily gazumped by the Labour party or the Tory party on one of its ‘modernisation’ fad diets”.
Comments along the line of “We should adopt Policy X to attract young voters” are falling into that trap I’m afraid. By all means work on good new policy ideas, and please aim them at young people (and women, and ethnic minorities) but you don’t generally win voters over by long discussions over policy, but by convincing them that you share their values. Occasional flagship policies are good for that but not essential.
Labour and the Tories did not win their highest vote shares in ages (for the Tories did indeed do that) through good manifestos – they were both terrible and streets behind ours. They did it by putting out a simple image: anti-austerity and compassion from Labour, patriotism from the Tories. Our image should be of the intelligent balanced party – the people who want to help (unlike the Tories) but who don’t believe in magic (unlike Labour). And our policies should be built around citizenship – the empowered individual protected by a safety net, neither the competitor in a Tory rat-race nor the client of a Labour hand-out machine.
@John Bennett
I refer you to my review of Richard Murphy’s “The Joy of Tax” here on LDV.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/review-of-the-joy-of-tax-by-richard-murphy-53361.html#comment-431938
I think that there is a case that is makeable for a UBI at the level proposed by Malcolm Torry for CIT, and at a stretch for the level proposed by the Greens. These are still very much subsistence level incomes (the Green party’s proposal sets it just above JSA). It is something that needs to be discussed in the round with the effects on taxes included; too many UBI proposals look just at the benefits side without considering the tax side.
“Labour and the Tories did not win their highest vote shares in ages (for the Tories did indeed do that) through good manifestos. they were both terrible and streets behind ours.”
That’s not really true. Putting aside how it would be paid for and whether all of it would actually be desirable, the Labour manifesto was excellent – distinctive headline policies and a clear vision for the country. It was very popular with a lot of people. Yes, there was some good stuff in ours but it wasn’t anywhere near as engaging on the whole.
A very good article btw Sam. Starting to approach the age where I’m no longer considered the ‘youth vote’, but its still sad to see how completely indifferent most of my peers are to the party right now – and in recent years.
@ James: I don’t think you can put aside “how it would be paid for” and “whether all of it would actually be desirable” in assessing a manifesto, those seem to me to be fundamental flaws. A number of the polices were gimmicks, notably the extra Bank Holidays and even the abolition of tuition fees and “bedroom tax” (in a context where most benefit cuts were to be retained) – policies aimed at hitting the most high profile vulnerable spots in the opposition rather than a reasoned assessment of what would most help the most poor.
But I’ll take your point about distinctiveness and clear direction. That’s pretty much what I’m saying – it is direction and distinctiveness from other parties that matters more than detail of policy implementation. Of course the latter is crucial to government, but for campaigning, less so.
Thanks Laurence Cox, I’ll look at the book.
I should say that my proposal is not concerned with “left or right” views of tax, but rather to suggest an efficient implementation of what I, naively perhaps, assume is the aim of (sane) politicians of various outlooks.
Adam Cain – but the whole LibDem manifesto is surely a gimmick too as there is no prospect of it being implemented as the LibDems will not, by themselves, form a Government. Even in Coalition the LibDems ditched policy pledges, didn’t this relegate the student fee pledge to nothing more than a gimmick?.
Burnt by the last Coalition disaster the LibDems leadership bounced the party into ruling out any Coalition with anyone. Incidentally, isn’t this a
strange position for a party that supports PR to adopt? In doing so, the LibDems would thus be in position whatsoever to enact any of their manifesto pledges? Again reducing the LibDem manifesto to a gimmick.
So what is the point of voting LibDem? Is it simply a protest vote as in ‘Not Labour and Not Tory’? Both Tory and Labour will say their purpose is to form a Government which will enable them to implement their manifesto – whether they do or not is a mute point at this stage.
The voters are sure to continue to ask what is the point of the LibDems. I’m not sure if there would be a consensus on LDV even. Clearly, trying to frame a ‘purpose’ around a single issue such as Brexit (important though it is) has had not tangible affect in terms of increase votes. Also, fine words extracted from the Preamble (however agreeable) are not likely to convert many.
The LibDems seem to be suffering an identity crisis, if not in the minds of die-hard LibDem loyal members, certainly the voting public. Until this central issue is addressed it is hard to see how the decline of the party will be reversed.
@ Joseph Bourke
I would expect that all the student loans from 2012 for tuition fees would be scrapped and replaced with a graduate tax. Therefore if my scheme was used a 9% levy on a graduates income above £21,000 for 25 years would be replaced with a 1% graduate tax on incomes over £26,000, 2% on incomes over £45,000 and 3% on incomes over £80,000, a special rate of 1p for incomes between £100,000 and £125,000 and 5p on incomes over £125,000 for life. I have worked on a comparison, a teacher under the current system would have borrowed £36,000, paid back £56,438.50 and then the government would write off £54,710.82 the outstanding loan. Under my system the universities would still get the £36,000 but the graduated teacher would pay £54,784.18 in extra tax over the whole 46 years of their career and there is no debt to write off. Why wouldn’t a student prefer my system?
Joseph Bourke, Michael BG – and existing student loans must be converted into public debts.
And before applying your plan, I want to restablish the 50% top tax rate, and taxing everyone with British citizenship.
Short-term capital gain tax must also be raised to 38%.
All out implementation of Land value tax, not just experiment anymore.
Finally, for the current student debts, applying EU financial transaction tax at a rate of 0.1% for just 1 year will allow you to pay off the majority of them.
The original architect of tuition fees, Andrew Adonis, predicts both the Tories and Labour will pledge to scrap them at the next election: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tuition-fees-are-being-killed-off-by-university-greed-6vngj5m5w
In which case I doubt a graduate tax will have much electoral appeal. The end result will be mediocre, underfunded universities paid for via taxation on everybody for the benefit of the middle class.
To Daniel Walker above, my thought was maintenance grants for everybody, not just poorer students. It’s absolutely clear the Lib Dems need to offer a massive bung to middle-class students. IMHO, doing it that way and leaving tuition fees alone is more likely to sustain a quality university system. But it all looks increasingly moot.
Graduate tax? I got an OU degree in 1974, what will it cost me?
Land value tax? I own a fifth of an acre in Southern England with a bungalow on it, what will it cost me?
Daft questions perhaps, to which the answers may be nothing and not a lot; but throwing around proposals for taxation with catchy names needs careful presentation.
RBH – we should reduce the proportion of school leavers going to unis from 48% to 30% and increase the number of apprentices rather than screwing them up with 9k per annum tuition fee. At least students won’t have to pay interest under a graduate tax. Many if not most of European countries have free unis.
Also, the level of student debts is also a potential bomb for the financial system.
John Bennett – similar to the way the party intended to fund NHS. But income tax hike for would be 2-3% for top rate (basically re-establish the 50% top rate) and 1-2% for the others. Actually it’s not impossible to beat Corbyn in the race to provide free stuff. Just raising the current average tax rate (twenty something) to the same as Scandinavia, Germany or Netherlands (thirty something).
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/may/27/tax-britons-pay-europe-australia-us
British pay less taxes than EU countries.
@ John Bennett
“Graduate tax? I got an OU degree in 1974, what will it cost me?
I like the idea of graduates from before 1990 also paying the graduate tax. This is because they didn’t pay anything for their tuition fees. I don’t think it should apply to past income only future income from when the tax is introduced. If you had paid your tuition fees then I don’t think you should pay the graduate tax. Also I don’t think people should pay it after they reach retirement age. However I do understand that some people think it should not be paid by those graduating before 1990.
If my Open University degree acquired 43 years ago, and paid for at the time, costs me money in the last few years of my life, then let us just say that this could influence my vote.
@ John Bennett
You didn’t say if you had reached retirement age or if you paid the tuition fees yourself for your degree. (I don’t know what the system was for the OU in 1974.) Have you voted for us in a general election in the past? If so what were your main reasons? If you can answer these questions I will try to convince you there would still be reasons for you to vote for us in a future general election even if there is a miracle and we adopted a graduate tax that included all of my suggestions.