Promises promises

[amateur51]

Only slightly possibly. I think it overestimates how important the issue was to the wider electorate, most of whom were/are entirely unaffected by university tuition fees. And in spite of what was said about tuition fees, the Lib Dems had a net loss of five seats: this confirms it was hardly a vote winner. It was never going to be an issue that would 'decide an election'.

So those were the seats Cleggie got with the pledge, so why did he make the pledge if it was never going to decide an election'??? he must have known he's get rumbled. The word is PANIC! Just like Cameron in the Scottish referendum, another set of possibly undeliverable pledges

[french frank]

On the other hand, irrespective of the damage that broken pledges can do to the reputation of politics generally, it's worth questioning whether the Libdems' eventual support for tuition fee rises was a good thing, whether the policy itself is a good thing. Look at this article for instance:

http://www.theguardian.com/education...-danny-dorling

On the 'broken pledge' indictment, I do agree - which is why much of the rank and file was so angry. The MPs discussed the proposals (internally) and voted to go along with it as a package. I've only quickly looked at Dorling's argument, but wasn't the argument against charging the beneficiaries of university education something approaching the full cost that the more you subsidise higher eduaction, the more you subsidise the richer members of society - the ones who disproportionately benefit?

The only people who seem to come out ahead from the whole fiasco seem to be: a) the present government, in that the cost for repaying the tuition fees of defaulting students is deferred to future governments ("it's not my problem")

Though increased costs will necessarily increase the burden on future governments/taxpayers anyway - or education suffers.

b) university institutions, especially the top brass in them, who are able to charge much more and increase their salaries to a level on a par with industry executives - £424K is Oxford's vice-chancellor's current salary)

I can't see that more than a tiny poroportion of the fee increase is going to line the pockets of vice-chancellors. And the whole quation of pay for 'top' people is linked to pay for BBC managers and MPs: everyone is beingpaide too much (which actually I agree with). As for the university institutions benefiting, is there an objection to that - other than a claim that they are all wastrels and will spend the money of unnecessary things?

and c) those who can make money out of the loans in the first place. The students are loaded with a whole pile of debt, at least £50K, which as the article indicates increases with RPI and a weighting: they are either tied to a below average wage to avoid repayment, or incur repayments which make it more difficult for them to save for anything like a home or a pension.

But only those who are considerably better off than most ARE 'saddled with a debt'. I posted a link to a student website last time this came up which showed that this was a 'paper debt' - and certainly did not count as a debt when it came to getting a mortgage.

Since current estimates are for a rate of default of up to 45%, the taxpayers of the future are also effectively loaded up with this debt. But the idea that there is no alternative is also wrong: why is it that in Holland, for instance, the annual tuition fee is only €1700, or less than a sixth of that in most English universities?

One needs to compare that with the current average salary, the tax paid and the amount going into education. Otherwise it amounts to saying how is it that houses only used to cost £800. Sometime, in some way, the taxpayer has to fund higher education. At a quick glance I think there are 7 UK universities in the 2014 Top 50 rankings and one from the Netherlands (No 42).

So it seems to me that the Libdems not only shot themselves in the foot with their broken pledge but did it for a rotten policy.

I agree with the first; I think the second needs further evidence.

[french frank]

So those were the seats Cleggie got with the pledge, so why did he make the pledge if it was never going to decide an election'??? he must have known he's get rumbled.

I think, in terms of an argument, you may be sawing off the branch on which you're sitting.

[Flosshilde]

the level of income that graduates are required to earn before they have to pay back even one penny of what they have borrowed was raised, so that only those who establish themselves in well-paid careers pay anything back.

Which I would imagine would be the ambition of most students? Meanwhile, until they reach the level where they do start to repay the loans the interest is racking up, making the actual amount they repay substantially more than the loan (Wonga anyone?)

But I didn't start the thread to go over the old ground of student fees/loans, LibDem policies, etc., but to comment on Clegg's failure to recognise what it is he's criticised for & what he should not do in the future.

[aeolium]

wasn't the argument against charging the beneficiaries of university education something approaching the full cost that the more you subsidise higher eduaction, the more you subsidise the richer members of society - the ones who disproportionately benefit?

I'm not sure it's a strong argument, if it was. As I recall it, certainly maintenance grants were means-tested in the old days. And it doesn't really help if you start to take away the subsidy as students are starting from such unequal positions to begin with (and the rich can pay the fees up-front and avoid debt, interest charges etc).

Though increased costs will necessarily increase the burden on future governments/taxpayers anyway - or education suffers. I can't see that more than a tiny poroportion of the fee increase is going to line the pockets of vice-chancellors. As for the university institutions benefiting, is there an objection to that - other than a claim that they are all wastrels and will spend the money of unnecessary things?

But why were the large increases required anyway? Have they resulted in significantly greater investment or significantly improved standards of higher education? Of course at the Browne Review which formed the basis for the policy, the Russell Group lobbied for hefty increases - why wouldn't any university do so, knowing that the government would pick up the tab if the students didn't? And back to the huge discrepancy between the cost of higher education in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe on the one hand and the UK and the US on the other - why? Is it because the latter countries are effectively creating a marketised system, treating higher education as simply another business - after all, Lord Browne was a (somewhat tainted) businessman who knew little about education.

But only those who are considerably better off than most ARE 'saddled with a debt'. I posted a link to a student website last time this came up which showed that this was a 'paper debt' - and certainly did not count as a debt when it came to getting a mortgage.

I don't understand this. All of those who get student loans have the debt. Repayments commence when their earnings reach £21000 which is currently well below the average working wage and the repayments can last for up to 30 years.

Sometime, in some way, the taxpayer has to fund higher education. At a quick glance I think there are 7 UK universities in the 2014 Top 50 rankings and one from the Netherlands (No 42).

But the funding system is so poor, not helping the two groups who have to find the money, the students and the taxpayers (and the students will of course also be taxpayers by the time they start repaying). It was estimated this year by the Higher Education Council that if the percentage of student loan debt not repaid reached a threshold of 48% then more money would have been collected under the old repayment system with £3000 fees and a lower repayment threshold. I don't think that kind of policy is worth keeping a few universities in the top 50 rankings (and they probably were before tuition fees came in).

Ed: sorry for derailing this thread - there is another one on this board "Student Loans: a fiscal time bomb" which might be a more appropriate location for these comments.

[french frank]

But I didn't start the thread to go over the old ground of student fees/loans, LibDem policies, etc., but to comment on Clegg's failure to recognise what it is he's criticised for & what he should not do in the future.

Sometimes I think people have forgotten exactly how things happened. I don't know that anyone anywhere doesn't think it was a foolish thing for the individuals to sign the student pledge without having a clue of what lay ahead. That was the mistake (and the inevitable result that people will interpret it as a ploy to get votes 'because that's obvious, isn't it?'). If they hadn't signed the pledge and had later voted for tuition rises, we would be in the same situation now as we are in fact. Labour candidates didn't sign the pledge because the report Labour commissioned while in government recommended an even higher increase in fees. And Clarke confirmed that a freeze in fees was unsustainable.

What the Lib Dems (in fact ANY party) should not do in the future is sign any sort of commitment before they even know what the election result is. I think you can be satisfied that that lesson was learnt by Clegg and that no one will do it again.

Manifestos are different: they are drawn up on the supposition that the party, if elected with a majority, will carry out those 'pledges' as time and circumstances permit e.g. for the abolition of tuition fees, the money had to be found to do it. The Lib Dem manifesto indicated various ways that the revenue would be raised to replace the tuition fee revenue that was lost - over a period of six years. But abolishing tuition fees becomes an impossibility in a coalition where a) the partner will not agree to the revenue raising measures and b) isn't in favour of the policy anyway.

Edit: And in case anyone wants to point to the exemplary situation north of the border: http://www.heraldscotland.com/politi...dents.25508893

"The Scottish Government must confront the fact Scotland has the worst record on widening access, the highest drop-out rates and the worst student support for the poorest students in any of the four home nations."

[amateur51]

We'll hear of the punters' revenge just after 01:00 hrs tomorrow I understand

[amateur51]

I think, in terms of an argument, you may be sawing off the branch on which you're sitting.

In which case I haven't explained the point to you thoroughly.

[french frank]

In which case I haven't explained the point to you thoroughly.

You didn't explain it at all. You reveal your mental attitudes; you don't support your opinions.

[amateur51]

You didn't explain it at all. You reveal your mental attitudes; you don't support your opinions.

Why should i automatically explain when I understood it perfectly the first time?

[french frank]

Why should i automatically explain when I understood it perfectly the first time?

My mistake. Your words were: "In which case I haven't explained the point to you thoroughly." I thought that was an indication that you wished someone other than yourself (i.e. me) to understand it.

[MrGongGong]

Though some are more motivated to resent it than others: it has little to do with the policy itself, because most people are unaffected. Mr GongGong is mistaken in thinking Liberal Democrats don't realise that.

I think that all the weasel words and false "apology" nonsense speak very loud indeed.
If that were true why are they still falling over themselves to make excuses and pretending that they didn't really like the tories after all?

If you don't believe in something or someones ideas for how things should be done you don't help them to do the things you say you find objectionable. I see that we are going to get satanists in the CofE, there are a few "theological grey areas" but i'm sure they can come to an agreement.

And this kind of attitude

And in spite of what was said about tuition fees, the Lib Dems had a net loss of five seats: this confirms it was hardly a vote winner. It was never going to be an issue that would 'decide an election'.

Is a huge part of the real problem.

Which could be summarised as

"It's ok to be dishonest if it doesn't loose you votes"

NO Nick and chums , it's not ok at all.

But you can't alter what's already been done, or a mistake that's already been made.

Ask Roy Tucker ? (ooops wrong thread)

I've been to two universities this week
I would bet serious money on a wager that asking students to list 5 words to describe the Lib Dems and the words
"dishonest" and "liar" appearing in most of the responses

Which is terribly terribly sad indeed

[amateur51]

My mistake. Your words were: "In which case I haven't explained the point to you thoroughly." I thought that was an indication that you wished someone other than yourself (i.e. me) to understand it.

Did you want me to assume that you wouldn't understand it then? How patronising that would have been of me! Not my style at all. I leave that to others better placed.

[french frank]

Gongers

If he doesn't apologise he isn't sorry, if he does it's a false apology.

"Describe the Liberal Democrats in 5 words" might be disallowed by the Electoral Commission as a 'leading question ... :-)

The point is, for you, there isn't anything they can do or say, now or in the future that will ever redeem the fact that an elected handful acted in what you deem a dishonest way: That damns the entire party, whether they were involved or not, for ever and ever. At least it makes your choices easier. It's one manifesto you don't need to study before you vote. If you do vote. Vote Green.

[MrGongGong]

Gongers

If he doesn't apologise he isn't sorry, if he does it's a false apology.

"Describe the Liberal Democrats in 5 words" might be disallowed by the Electoral Commission as a 'leading question ... :-)

The point is, for you, there isn't anything they can do or say, now or in the future that will ever redeem the fact that an elected handful acted in what you deem a dishonest way: That damns the entire party, whether they were involved or not, for ever and ever. At least it makes your choices easier. It's one manifesto you don't need to study before you vote. If you do vote. Vote Green.

I think he didn't apologise for being dishonest (as has been said before)
I really wish the Lib Dems would get rid of him and start again.
We really COULD do with a "Liberal" party

Anyway
I promise to buy you a glass of wine
and I really will :-)