David Cameron suffered a torrid time at Prime Minister's Questions alongside the embattled Nick Clegg and Vince Cable over tuition fees today.
David Cameron suffered a torrid time at Prime Minister’s Questions alongside the embattled Nick Clegg and Vince Cable over tuition fees today. In heated exchanges with Ed Miliband, the prime minister claimed that under alternative proposals for a graduate tax:
“… people on £6,000, £7,000, £9,000 would have to start paying back.”
However, under the National Union Students’s plans, graduates earning less than £15,000 will be exempt from the tax, as re-iterated in NUS president Aaron Porter’s letter to Nick Clegg this week:
“… you’ve argued that your proposals are fairer because graduates would only start paying back when they earn £21,000 as opposed to £15,000 in our proposals drafted in 2008.”
On Sunday, Mr Clegg accused Porter of “not being straight”, and on the Daily Politics today Baroness Warsi went further, accusing the NUS of “peddling a lot of myths” – yet this is exactly what Mr Cameron is guilty of.
Speaking on Sky News this lunchtime, Porter ramped up the pressure on the Liberal Democrats, saying:
“They have two clear choices: they can be loyal and keep their promise to the Conservative party, or they can be loyal to students… The anger will continue for the next few days and again beyond the vote.”
Update 1700hrs
The full transcript of today’s PMQs is now online; featuring Democratic Unionist Party MP for Belfast North Nigel Dodds’s question to Mr Cameron:
“In light of his experience of the World cup bid in Zurich last week, can the Prime Minister tell us what his view now is of an organisation that engages in the most convoluted and bizarre voting arrangements, that says one thing and then votes exactly the opposite way, and that has a leader who seems more interested in power and prestige than accountability…
“And after he has finished with the Lib Dems, can he tell us what he thinks of FIFA?”
It’s the way you tell ’em!
15 Responses to “Who’s not being straight now?”
Stephen W
“For me it’s the fact that the source of funding has shifted from public to individual,”
Under a graduate tax the money comes from graduates, under tuition fees the money comes from graduates. The only difference is entirely semantic.
“We’ll see a two-tier system as those with prestige can afford not to pass students if they don’t measure up and those without can’t afford to put off potential customers, increasing the gap between best and worst and leading to a generalised ‘dumbing down’.”
Fair objection. But surely making universities responsive to their students can help drive up standards. If students have a connection to the money, they will demand better service. A grad tax takes power away from students and gives it to government managers.
“They don’t put people into too much debt if they’ve found they can’t do it and drop out.”
Again, fair point. But why do you think that a “debt” (which isn’t really a debt) will put people off but the threat of considerably higher income tax will not? I doubt most people will consider there to be much of a difference.
Chris
“Under a graduate tax the money comes from graduates, under tuition fees the money comes from graduates. The only difference is entirely semantic.”
Under the current system the tuition fees were in addition to government funding. The new proposals will see government funding cut completely for everything except science and engineering. That is partly why Ed is opposing the coalitions plans because they cut the government teaching grant by 80%.
“But surely making universities responsive to their students can help drive up standards.”
No it won’t, it will drive standards down. Just look at America, the home of the mickey mouse, multiple choice degree.
“A grad tax takes power away from students and gives it to government managers.”
Totally untrue, already the universities get money per student. In the current and proposed system all the student will get is a statement from the Student Loans Company.
“But why do you think that a “debt” (which isn’t really a debt) will put people off but the threat of considerably higher income tax will not? I doubt most people will consider there to be much of a difference.”
The current and proposed system are basically graduate poll taxes, a pure graduate tax is better because it can actually be graduated with income. However, you cannot look at the proposals without thinking about where they are ultimately leading too – the complete removal of government funding from universities, uncapped tuition fees and commercial student tuition fee loans
Eddy Anderson
Re the NUS:
Our new writer at Political Reboot, Emanuelle Esposti, considers whether our students are barking up the wrong tree–or rather lamppost?
‘It is not the details of the report we should be condemning, but its overarching philosophy’:
http://politicalreboot.blogspot.com/2010/12/barking-up-wrong-lamppost-why-students.html
Liz McShane
Anon – I am so glad that Labour never ‘got rid’ of Brown. He was the only one who knew how to avoid us having a 1930s-style depression. Also when you have a spare hour read Ed Balls’ magnificent speech he gave to Bloomberg in Aug (in response to Osborne’s useless/mad effort. It’s a shame Osborne didn’t follow in the family business and just stick to selling wallpaper.
Liz McShane
Getting back to the subject of this post….. any MP who benefitted from free University/Tertiary education & votes for a rise in tuition fees should be made to pay back the cost of their education & at today’s prices.