The Liberal Democrats have got themselves in quite a mess on higher education funding. Today, we have the bizarre spectacle of the Vince Cable pulling out (on “police advice”) of a planned speech at Oxford University because students planned to protest his Government's plans to at least double tuition fees.
Our guest writer is Wes Streeting, former president of the National Union of Students (2008-10) and currently chief executive of the Helena Kennedy Foundation, an educational charity that promotes widening participation and social mobility; Wes is writing in a personal capacity
The Liberal Democrats have got themselves in quite a mess on higher education funding. Today, we have the bizarre spectacle of the Vince Cable pulling out (on “police advice”) of a planned speech at Oxford University because students planned to protest his Government’s plans to at least double tuition fees. Where the Liberal Democrats would have once organised such protests, now they run and hide from them.
Yesterday in the House of Lords debate on the Browne Review, Baroness Kennedy said:
“I am concerned that we will see the arrival of Tina. Noble Lords may wonder who she is. Tina is the mantra that we hear too often nowadays: there is no alternative.”
Tina has arrived. At Deputy Prime Minister’s Questions this week, Nick Clegg claimed that the Government has looked “very carefully” at the case for a graduate tax, saying:
“…it has also been proposed by the National Union of Students – but it is not workable and it is not fair.”
Clegg, and his Liberal Democrat colleagues, ought to look a bit closer at this issue. Since the publication of the Browne Review the political debate has been allowed to polarise between proposals of the Browne Committee and a pure graduate tax. This has not occurred by chance; it was the only alternative considered and addressed by the Browne Review.
The ‘pure graduate tax’ option is also a complete straw man. I have yet to hear a single commentator or stakeholder recommend a pure graduate tax. It has certainly never been proposed by NUS. There is no evidence that the Browne Review, or the Government, has given the full range of alternatives due consideration.
The NUS model, or some variant on it, could be a serious lifeline for the Liberal Democrats. It differs from the pure graduate tax in a number of important ways. For example, it is time limited for 15 years, the revenues would be held in an independent trust to ensure the revenue reaches universities and don’t end up being diverted by the Treasury. Unlike the Browne proposals, it would eliminate the concept of tuition fees, debt linked to fees and would generate savings for the Treasury in the longer term.
Some Responsibility for this one-sided debate should rest with the Labour opposition. Labour’s message has been muddied by dissent within the Shadow Cabinet from those who were previously only too happy to accept fuhrerprizip on higher education funding. Ed Miliband’s platform was in support of the graduate tax principle and he should continue this break from the past.
There are two real alternatives available to the Liberal Democrats; they can demonstrate the value of their presence in the coalition by changing the direction of current policy, or their ministers can abstain while backbenchers vote against. There is nothing in the coalition agreement that binds the Lib Dems to supporting higher fees. If they do it will be by choice and will be the ultimate betrayal of students and their own values.
23 Responses to “NUS funding model offers serious lifeline to the Lib Dems to think again”
Miram Show
NUS funding model offers serious lifeline to the Lib Dems to think …: The Liberal Democrats have got themselves … http://bit.ly/dCGymP
Jason Keen
Another shout out to #OxProtest in a very good article by @wesstreeting about the possibilities for a #gradtax: http://bit.ly/cbomDQ
shawna walker
NUS funding model offers serious lifeline to the Lib Dems to think …: The Liberal Democrats have got themselves … http://bit.ly/bTYitY
cim
David Levene: Certainly I agree that the information gap – and even the name of things (it’s called “student debt” but it doesn’t really act like any other form of debt in existence) will put some people off university. But… let me rebrand but not actually change the substance of Browne:
– your education will be free when you get it, and you’ll get between £3750 and £7000 a year support towards living costs, depending on your financial situation. Part-time students will also get this support.
– your university will tell the government approximately how much your tuition will cost, to receive an appropriate level of funding to pay your lecturers, buy library books, and so on. You can find out how much they ask for, if you’re curious. [1]
– after you graduate, you will pay for thirty years an additional income tax of 9% on any annual income over £21,000, to help repay the government for the costs of your support and tuition, and so allow it to fund future students.
– You’re not generally expected to repay the government anywhere near the full costs of your education, but in the event that after graduation you become very rich, your extra tax payments will be limited so that you don’t have to pay through this tax more than the government had to borrow to fund your education.
Sounds pretty good now?
cim
Oops. Dangling footnote there. It was supposed to read
[1] The trust Browne places in universities to tell the government how much money they want for each student is amazingly high. The taper looks like it helps regulate this, but actually doesn’t, since with uncapped “fees” (as proposed by Browne) you just ask for more money until the post-taper funding is the size you want, and with capped “fees” you just ask for whatever the cap is.