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.
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
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
Hence you accept my argument. Thank you.
Fairness is half of the pledge, raising the cap is the other half.
You broke your pledge.
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.