Skip to main content

NUS Blueprint - also breaks pledge

I have linked to the page relating to the NUS alternative proposals.

On page 5 it says:
More funding for the higher education sector would be available, bringing long-term security and sustainability.
 After twenty years of operation, we estimate the total revenues from personal contributions would be £6.4bn each year, after thirty years it would be £7.9bn each year, and after forty years it would be £8.5bn each year
 This compares with estimated revenue of £6bn each year from fees under the current system, if the cap was set at £5,000


In other words the NUS proposals increase the capitation/fees element to £5,000. Now you could say that I am right about the NUS pledge and that it refers to only stopping fees from going up with the current system and that if there is a "fairer alternative" then such a limit does not apply.

Alternatively you could say that the pledge is a blunt - no more money for universities - pledge. In which case the NUS Blueprint - which involves almost doubling the fees element - would break the NUS pledge.

It is just some more evidence that my interpretation of the pledge is clearly right.

Comments

PoliticalHack said…
Now so desperate that you intentionally misread the NUS plan? This proposes establishing a graduate tax which feeds into a specific national fund for university funding - to supplement, not supplant government funding (as the current Lib Dem/Tory plans do). The section to which you refer is a comparison to the current system if the cap was increased to £5000. The NUS proposal effectively scraps tuition fees for all and makes additional funding available for HEFCE to distribute alongside government funding.

The NUS blueprint allocates more money for universities.

In any case, it is irrelevant to the interpretation of the pledge that you signed.

Voting for a system based on the NUS blueprint would keep your pledge as it
a - would be voting against any increase (as you would be voting to abolish the current system)
b - would be fairer
john said…
In otherwords you recognise that the phrase "fairer alternative" is key and there is no simplistic limit to funding of universities.

Hence you accept my argument. Thank you.
PoliticalHack said…
No, I don't accept your argument. You are wilfully misinterpreting my words.

Fairness is half of the pledge, raising the cap is the other half.

You broke your pledge.
john said…
My argument is a simple one which is if we move the system to a sufficiently fair alternative then the pledge has been satisfied.

If students don't pay tuition fees then my argument is that from the student's perspective the amount of the tuition fee itself does not matter.

I don't see this as complex.

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…