Skip to main content

Student Fees and the NUS Pledge

There is rightly a debate about the signing of the NUS pledge by Lib Dem MPs, including myself, and what happens now about the Browne Report and any subsequent proposals.

The pledge said:
“I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative”

It is clear from that pledge that the objective is to have "a fairer alternative". The question, therefore, is whether the government's proposals are, indeed, a fairer alternative.

The test is whether they have moved from being effectively a tuition loan to what is a capped progressive graduate tax (or graduate contribution).

I am still not sure that they are progressive enough and have raised this with the government, but in defence of the proposals:

a) Up front fees are scrapped for part time students - this is important.
b) 30% of graduates pay less under the Browne proposals than under Labour's proposals.

The proposals are far more progressive than Labour's. If the option of a penalty free up front payment or advance is taken away then they become a taxation system rather than a fees system particularly given that different people pay different amounts depending upon their income.

However, more work needs to be done.

Comments

Red Rag said…
That is the biggest political cop out ever. The pledge did two things. "Vote against a rise in tuition fees" AND "pressute the government to introduce a fairer alternative"...that is an alternative to tuition fees.

If you can hide a broken pledge behind a play on words, it shows the Tories really are rubbing off on your party.

PS Cameron and Osborne cheering enthusiastically and back slapping and shaking Vince Cables hand after his speech on the broken pledge has got to be the Lib Dems lowest ebb in the coalition.....up to now.
Mike said…
It really is shameful that the Liberal Democrats should be so disingenuous. To pledge no increase in fees, but then suggest that an increase in fees is what was really intended as a "fairer altenative" is outrageous.

Liberal Democrats will be punished in the local elections next May. In the next door constituency (Solihull) three Lib Dem councillors have already left the Liberal Democrat group.
Pensfold said…
The Lib Dems should plead guilty to breaking their pledge.

However, they can justify doing so by coming up with a better (if more complicated) solution.

Lib Dems should own up to Lord Browne coming up with the better scheme after having spent a long time investigating his more complicated options.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…