As MPs prepare to vote on raising tuition fees up to £9000 a year, three straightforward facts appear to have eluded Coalition ministers.
In a style so eerily reminiscent of the worst of Blairite disciples, their pitch has consisted of either repeating a mantra (that the new fees are "fair") or playing with semantics, which is generally the resort of the desperate.
But if only they could just clarify three questions:
1) The Coalition claims tuition fees have to be raised now and by this much because it would reduce public spending. They are repeatedly arguing that prior to the general election they "didn't know quite what the state of public finances were" and that the deficit needs sorting out and quick .
For the sake of the argument, let's just say we believe them. Let's assume that the LibDems were so inept that they truly thought state coffers were 9000 times worse off than expected.
The fact is we won't be seeing any of the new hiked-up graduates until at least 2016. Even assuming that they all miraculously land a £40k job each straightaway, it will be years before the benefits of their repayment scheme is felt.
And guess where the money is going to come in from in the meantime? The state, of course. So how would the new tuition fees regime help towards the public deficit?
2) The Coalition are making a big deal out of the fact that the new repayment threshold will be set at £21000 which, they argue, is fairer than the current £15,000.But they forget a simple fact. At the very best, people will start repaying in 2016. Realistically, much later on and, in any case, for much longer. So if you consider the expected growth of wages, the threshold may actually not be much of an improvement on the current £15,000.
3) Clegg claimed that the tuition fees protests are going to "damage" the situation and have the effect of "deterring the poor" from applying to university.
Now Clegg. This is not Jonestown where you expect believers to follow you blindly at every turn without even a bellyache.
You can't for years make "scrap tuition fees" one of your flagship policies, ask for hundreds of thousands of votes on that basis and then - the moment you change your mind overnight - seriously expect that everybody will just go "oh alright then", drink the kool aid and follow you blindly.
Fair enough you just wanted to grab as many votes as possible with no shame, but at least show some dignity now. Appreciate that people are harbouring all sorts of feelings towards you and your sect-- ranging from slightly puzzled to outright pissed off.
And either way. How are those protests going to "deter" the poor? You didn't have a problem when your party kicked up a fuss until the other day, did you? Wasn't your opposition to Tony Blair's hike also likely to "damage" the situation?
"It is simply wrong to penalise people who want to make the best of themselves by saddling them with enormous mortgage-style debts from the day they graduate, especially when we know the root of the current economic crisis was too much debt. And it's clear that people from disadvantaged backgrounds are far more likely to be put off going to university if it costs them tens of thousands of pounds".
Your words, Clegg, January 2010. Just do the decent thing and resign.
7 comments:
I've voted consistently for the Lib Dems, but am not (yet) a Lib Dem member. I find myself broadly supportive of the proposals, and many of the other things Lib Dems are doing in Government. I'll attempt to answer your three questions.
The important thing is not the debt as such, but the deficit. We have to have a credible plan for tackling the deficit, otherwise our debts will cost us more. The deficit is effectively how much further into debt we're going each year. As long as we have a credible plan for reducing the deficit, our debts will remain affordable because lenders know they will get their money back. It doesn't matter as such that the changes don't kick in immediately; what's important is that we don't remain on a path that puts us ever more into debt.
The £21,000 is linked to inflation - it will go up as prices go up.
The approach taken by the NUS is likely to deter the poor because it promotes the idea that people cannot afford to go to university if these proposals are implemented. This is simply not true - it actually becomes more affordable for part time students to go to university, for example, it increases the maintenance grant, and it means that those who earn the least will pay less, not more, in tuition fees later on, with most people paying less each month than they do under the existing system. In any case, people will only pay when they can afford to do so, which makes it much more affordable than a basic graduate tax.
I understand why people feel let down by the inability of the Government to fund free further education in the current economic climate, though it remains Lib Dem policy to phase out tuition fees in the long term. It is vital that people look at the detail of the proposals and aren't taken in by the messages being given out by those with vested interests in bringing down the Lib Dems
such as the pro-Labour NUS.
Well I've been a Lib Dem member for over twenty years, our MPs (at least the ones in England)should keep their pledge; it is simply a matter of honour.
The deal is pretty close to what the NUS say they want. I know there is a lot of nonsense and lies; the hypocrisy of Labour is breath-taking. However I still believe our MPs should honour their pledge.
What's all this about the pro-Labour NUS? What, overnight?
I don't remember the Liberal Democrats ever complaining about the NUS all the time they courted all their anti-tuition fees rallies (until tuition fees were considered bad of course). And that was over years and years. They loved the NUS back then, didn't they?
Brian Lawton:
"As long as we have a credible plan for reducing the deficit, our debts will remain affordable because lenders know they will get their money back. It doesn't matter as such that the changes don't kick in immediately; what's important is that we don't remain on a path that puts us ever more into debt."
Brian, with due respect, but I think you are deluded. Even Lord Browne conceded that the most optimistic estimate of graduates repaying the full amount is 40%.
Don't forget that the Coalition's plan is NOT Lodr Browne's. There have been significant changes. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (Nov 2010), "the cost to the taxpayer is significantly higher than under Lord Browne's recommendations [...], costing the government potentially billions of pounds of savings compared to Lord Browne's proposals" (link here).
The plan is far from credible.
The risk is that of having a system built on a massive expectation of future repayment that simply won;t materialise (or will only do so in part).
I quote Nick Clegg himself when I write that "especially when we know the root of the current economic crisis was too much debt", we should avoid envisaging a whole system based on the same mistake.
As for question n.2, I beg to differ. You forget the interest added to the whole amount.You've got to look at the whole picture.
Look at this extremely informative (though depressing) study by thisismoney.co.uk on the new tuition fees regime.
One final, very important point, which I forgot to include in the OP.
I wish opponents of the new tuition fees regime were more vocal about the Coalition's abolition of the EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance) .
They are not reducing it. They are scrapping it altogether. That means the only financial means poorer students had to get to their A-Levels (crucial if you then want to access Uni) is now out of the window.
Talk about deterring students from poorer backgrounds...!
And do you remember Mr Clegg predicting "Greek-style unrest if cuts are made too quickly" weeks before the election?
He got that one right.
Anonymous, there were two parts to the pledge: to vote against any increase to the cap and, importantly, to support a fairer system. This system is fairer in that the poor pay less and the rich pay more. Therefore the Lib Dems were bound to break the pledge whichever way they voted. Personally, I preferred that they stick to the fairer system half.
Stan, in the last election, more students still voted for Labour than voted for the Lib Dems. NUS Presidents are almost always members of the Labour party including Aaron Porter.
Claude, the plan to which I was refering in my previous post was that of deficit reduction over the lifetime of this Parliament.
That most people won't pay the full amount rather makes the point that people won't be as badly off as they seem to think they will be. That we know now that the majority won't pay the full amount rather negates your point that we're relying on the money magically materialising.
Indeed, as people get closer to the thirty years, our understanding of what will need to be written off will be continually updated, so we're unlikely to be taken by surprise as many were with the banks.
It's fine to include the interest, though I was responding to the specific question about the increase in the threshold, which is an improvement even if not as great as it seems. However, looking at this point briefly, it's not real terms interest until you earn £21k. And monthly payments will still be lower. Indeed, the lowest 20% of graduates will pay less under the new regime than under the old.
"in the last election, more students still voted for Labour than voted for the Lib Dems"
Not true.
The majority of students voted LibDem at the last general election. According to a YouGov poll published in May,45 per cent of the student vote went to the Liberals, making Nick Clegg and Vince Cable's party the firm favourite in campuses up and down the country.
"Claude, the plan to which I was refering in my previous post was that of deficit reduction over the lifetime of this Parliament."
Exactly. It does nothing to reduce the deficit. Taxpayers money will be used aplenty for the next 6 years at the very least.
Fact: the Government will have "to borrow £10.7 billion to fund student loans in 2015/16 compared to the £4.1 billion it borrowed in 2010/11.
Take a look at this.
"Indeed, as people get closer to the thirty years, our understanding of what will need to be written off will be continually updated, so we're unlikely to be taken by surprise as many were with the banks."
So where will the money come from? It really is that simple.
Post a Comment