Ed Miliband's tuition fees policy is equitable, good for Britain and good for the taxpayer
Ed Miliband today stood at the Leeds College of Music to deliver a speech which, it is safe to say, has been hotly anticipated – especially by young people and those who could be first time voters.
A lot has been trailed about what could be coming today, but it would appear that despite the right-wing media’s attempts to smear Ed, a promise has been given which can be delivered. More importantly, this would deliver a genuine saving for tax payers across the country from the get go.
So what is this promise?
A £3k cut in tuition fees, you might think, would cost you the tax payer more. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Fees were introduced in January 2004, so just over 11 years ago, with the idea that as a graduate’s earnings went up they would be more and more able to pay off the money that they had in effect borrowed from the government.
As the below graph shows there is a direct correlation between graduate lifetime earnings, the level at which tuition fees are set and the amount which is then paid back to the government through a person’s pay. Indeed, the higher fees go, the more unlikely it is a graduate will pay back the loan in full.
I, for one, am not surprised at this and I graduated in 2012. Since then my pay may have varied a great deal but one thing I am certain of is that, at least in my current job where I pay on average £1 (yes £1!) per month towards my fees, I will never pay back the loan in full under the current system.
As @EvidenceUK so rightly points out, the potential for paying back in full is dependent almost entirely on the level at which fees are set and the potential earnings of a graduate in their lifetime. This may seem self evident but the fact remains, with wages being squashed it is unlikely that anyone graduating within the last three years and the next two (give or take) – should the current system remain – will repay their fees in full.
So what does this mean on the ground? This will entrench the need for educational institutions to spend more and more time on seeking funding from elsewhere, in effect what we’re seeing with the £9k tuition fee levels is enforced “Business-ification” of what were once considered quality educational establishments.
What Ed Miliband is offering is a rebuttal of this, it is education for all which is quality at the point of use and which most importantly will allow the government to have the money returned to them. Yes, of course, there will be many out there who want the Labour Party to go further even so far as to abolish tuition fees completely.
This is a laudable aim, but what Ed is offering is a starting point from which to begin real change both in higher education and elsewhere. A comparable example is that of the railways; many of us want them returned entirely to the public sector but until such a point as the Labour Party are in majority government this cannot be achieved as legislation is required.
Ed has offered a promise which is deliverable under a Labour government, a promise which can be relied upon and more to the point is equitable. Reducing fees from £9k to £6k would mean an average reduction in debt of around £9k per student; alongside this it will cut the burden on taxpayers in the order of £40bn by 2030.
This is not an idle promise, similar to that signed by Nick Clegg ahead of May 2010, these are fully funded allowing the full protection of our universities so they can concentrate on what they do best – offering the best possible education for the next generation. As an aspiring graduate student myself and also someone paying back laughably small amounts of my tuition fees, I for one can sign up to this straight away.
Ed’s HE policy is equitable, good for Britain as a whole, good for the taxpayer and most importantly will mean Britain retains it’s hard fought for reputation for excellence in Higher Education. This policy is reason enough for first time voters and young people to vote Labour.
Owain Gardner is a graduate of York University and co-editor of Labour Left’s Red Book
114 Responses to “Ed Miliband’s tuition fee pledge: another reason for young people to vote Labour”
Kevin Stall
I worked a year and managed to save enough to pay for a year of school. I know a family where the girls work a half year and save enough to go to school for a year. They are cutting hair to do it.
Leon Wolfeson
You’re completely wrong. Graduate loans are a major drain on what those graduates can spend. You’re defending a deflationary policy!
Society as a whole benefits from people with degrees (as they get paid more), whereas in this system the rich pay the least since they can afford up-front fees.
And of course, it’s far more expensive to the government to keep the present system. So everyone except the rich loses out.
Your reference to “fields” suggests you’re simply after more cuts than the two-thirds cut in course variety since the early 1990’s which we’re headed for by next year.
Kevin Stall
If you get a degree that nets you a job, you can afford to pay it back. Why should those that choose to go to Uni get a benefit that others do not. If you choose to waste your time on a degree that will not get you a job, you have wasted your time and our money. Because tuition does not cover the entire cost of university. If you get a job that pays you a decent wage thanks to going to university, you should pay for that benefit. If you get a degree and go on to earn 50,000 a year, you can afford to pay for your degree. Its called budgeting. You drive your old car a year longer, you forgo getting the BMW or volvo. You choose to go to university, reap the benefits. Now you want it to be free so that you have more spending money. Forget it. You choose to get the degree in what ever subject you choose. There are thousands of kids out there that even if it was free can’t afford to go to uni. So why should the middle class get this freebie? I call it middle class because the poor can not afford to go, they still need to work in order to have a place to live and food to eat. It is a middle class benefit you are talking about.
Leon Wolfeson
Ah yes, you can “afford” to lose cash across your working lifespan to go to University.
Oh wait, no, you’re just arguing against the 99% going. That’s your “budgeting”, downskilling the workforce. Only your rich who can afford 9k a year and living expenses up front, as you hate on the middle class.
As you defend the far more expensive present system. Plenty of cash for that.
And you don’t even know how the University loans system works. Sad.
Kevin Stall
And how do the poor survive while going to university? How do they pay their rent, buy food? Free tuition does nothing for the poor just the middle class and the rich.