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

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…