Day 3782: Liberal Democrats, we must earn back the trust of students; we must oppose flogging degrees to the rich!

Tuesday:


The universities minister, Mr David Witless, is proposing that Universities in England may be allowed to make extra places available for wealthy UK students.**

Let's just say that again: if you're RICH, you'll be able to BUY a place at a British University.

Quite simply, RICH people will have MORE CHANCES of getting a university place than POOR people.

And Mr Witless thinks this is going to make the tuition fees debacle BETTER???

Perhaps he'd like to sell them a LADDER to PULL UP after them too!

It's not FAIR and we should be AGAINST that sort of thing!

Allowing the RICH to game the system in their favour is the whole of the problem. It's a shoring up of the VESTED INTERESTS, the very OPPOSITE of what Liberals should stand for.


Ladies and gentlebeans we have FORM on tuition fees. We fluffed up.

20:20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, and at the time I was all FOR doing the best deal for students we could achieve, and hang the political consequences: the people would UNDERSTAND that we'd made a difference and made things better.

Well, it turns out "the people" don't do NUANCE.

I'm coming around to the opinion that in the long run students would have been better served if we had kept faith with them and kept our promise EVEN IF the short term result cost them more. By concentrating too much on the DETAIL, we lost sight of the BIG PICTURE. What Mr Lord Bonkers might call "too much POLICY; not enough IDEOLOGY", or as the Hon Lady Mark might say: "the POLICIES aren't the issue; the electorate operate on the basis of PERCEPTION."

It seems – perhaps monstrously unfairly – not to matter HOW MANY other promises we KEPT; we broke ONE and it's tainted EVERYTHING.

All along, Captain Clegg has argued that we need to do everything to PROVE that coalitions WORK. Well, to too many people, "broken promises" are the proof that they DON'T.

The damage that that one broken promise has done to the idea of cooperative politics… at the moment it appears incalculable.

We need to recognise that. We need to apologise for that.

I think we need to say: "we promised we would oppose tuition fees and then voted for a rise and that was wrong". We did it for the best of reasons, because the deal for students that we could get by doing that was better than any other offer on the table, but we know that we broke our promise there and it's not good enough and we are sorry.

And then we need to say how we are going to FIX this.

Step one is to kybosh this BARKING MAD, RIGHTWING proposal before it gets started.

This is LINE ONE stuff, people: "the Liberal Democrats EXIST to ensure no one is enslaved by ignorance, poverty or conformity". NOT "the Liberal Democrats exist to ensure everyone can be free from ignorance so long as they're already wealthy".


We've stopped (for now) the Tories privatising the Health Service; now let's stop them privatising our bloody Universities as well!

PS

** The BBC updated their story AFTER I wrote my diary to say the Prime Monster has squished this policy already.

ELEPHANT: Fear Me! I have destroyed hundreds of Conservatory policies!

BALLOON: Well, fear me! I've destroyed all of them!

Eek!

.

Day 3705: Aaron Porter – Be Careful What You Wish For…

Tuesday:


Mr Aaron Porter is, depending on interpretation, "resigning", "standing down" or "choosing not to stand for re-election" as President of the National Union of Students.

Mr Porter is famous for shouting BETRAYAL at the Liberal Democrats because, when we were not given enough votes to put an end to TUITION FEES, we COMPROMISED to make the system more PROGRESSIVE and get the best deal for students.

IRONICALLY, Mr Porter appears to have been ousted following the revelation that he thought the Coalition's system was, er, PROGRESSIVE and that the NUS should try to get the best deal for students.

Still, I will not shed any TEARS for him; HE chose to try to ride the TIGER-monster… and now it has EATEN him.

Or as Mr Jesus might have put it: He who lives by the rhetoric of "betrayal" will die by the rhetoric of "betrayal".

Unsurprisingly, he's been given a column in the Grauniad to air his self-justification. No doubt he can look forward to many more when he receives the usual reward for being a grovelling quisling an NUS President: a safe Hard Labour seat.

Equally unsurprisingly, it makes NO SENSE at all.

I précis:

"I've done tremendously well bringing people together and leading the fight against the nasty horrid Coalition and so now I'm standing down in the interest of unity."

Er, riiiiight.


He talks about "the politics of personal attacks" which is IRONIC for a man who himself attacks Captain Clegg and Mr Dr Vince for "disgraceful behaviour", (way to play the men not the ball there, Aaron) and rather OVERLOOKS that the "attacks" that have brought him down are coming from, er, the very STUDENTS he claims that he represents.

And after all, why would the students attack him when he's been showing ONE FACE to them – one of solidarity with the campaign against tuition fees – while showing a SECOND FACE to the Universities and the Government – making the frankly OUTRAGEOUS suggestion that student fees could be kept down by cutting grants to the less well off, as well as the recent revelation that it turns out the NUS think the Coalition proposals are progressive after all!

He goes on to say: "Young people have proved that they can hold entrenched interests and uncaring governments to account"

Well, HALF right: "Young people have proved that they can hold entrenched interests."

It is CLEAR that the entrenched vested interest here is… the NUS itself!

The NUS has been acting (and always HAD acted) in the interest of careerist Hard Labour proto-drones who want face-time on the tellybox and column inches in the Grauniad when it SHOULD have been acting in the interest of the STUDENTS.

For CYNICAL and SELFISH reasons, the NUS leadership have fanned the flames of student anger over the Coalition's plans for tuition fees having kept pretty quiet when Hard Labour INTRODUCED tuition fees and pretty quiet when Hard Labour TRIPLED tuition fees and while still keeping pretty quiet about the fact that THEIR OWN PROPOSALS for a graduate tax are, fundamentally, PRETTY SIMILAR to the scheme we've ended up with.

If a graduate tax is acceptable, then the loan scheme with its higher starting point for repayments and cut-off point is ALSO acceptable; and if the loan scheme is NOT acceptable, then NEITHER is a graduate tax.

There is something frankly DISHONEST about making young people upset, afraid and angry over this when you are promising them EXACTLY the same deal under a different name.

Now I think that there is a WORD for making promises to people and then going behind their backs to break those promises… but it eludes me for the moment.


Does this mean that we will get a better representative for the students elected?

Well, as things are we shall probably get an angry young socialist called Mr Mark Bergfeld whose manifesto is:

"The fight goes on – No fees, no cuts, save EMA"

So, no change in the rhetoric, then.

(And after all, after the poison of Porter, who's likely to even THINK of standing on a platform of "let's try and make the best deal that we can get"?)

Is it better to face someone like Mr Porter who rails against you but will compromise in secret, or Mr Bergfeld who rails against you and WON'T compromise ever? And, more importantly, who is better for the STUDENTS?

Maybe, if he gets elected, Mr Bergfeld will – like the Liberal Democrats – make the UNPLEASANT discovery that you CAN'T keep all your promises all the time when you are in a position of political weakness. Or maybe he will just go on hating us.

In the end, that was Mr Porter's REAL fault. He was TOO LIKE the Liberal Democrats: spoke out against the tuition fees and then found that he couldn't actually get rid of them so tried to make things less bad.

Though at least we've shut up about abolishing tuition fees (for the duration of the Coalition) since we found we can't (for the duration of the Coalition). Mr Porter tried to have his cake AND fling it in our faces.

Declaration of Interest

Yes, yes, okay, I DID have a LITTLE bit of a controversial opinion about Mr Aaron Porter's policies… and then he resigned.

And there was that time I had a LITTLE bit of a tussle with Mr Aaron Murin-Heath… and then HE resigned.

Look, I don't JUST have it in for people called "Aaron"… it's just, if you're working your way through the ALPHABET, you have to start SOMEWHERE!
.

Day 3621: Is it Time to Recall… Aaron Porter?

Tuesday:


The Coalition proposes that new graduates pay an amount every month proportional to their ability to pay, with additional help for the lowest earners, repayments to be capped at either thirty years or a maximum total payment ("paying off the loan").

The NUS proposes that graduates pay an amount every month proportional to their ability to pay, with additional help for the lowest earners, repayments to be capped at either twenty-five years or a maximum total payment ("for fairness").

So can ANYONE explain to me why the NUS' proposals are fair and reasonable but the Coalition's are wickedness incarnate?


Today, Captain Clegg has written to the Leader of the National Union of Students, Mr Harry Porter, to ask him to stop gathering elves and pixies and warlocks to march on Hogwarts Cowley Street and instead really consider the actual proposals.

So consider the actual proposals is what I did.

Mr Porter has been getting a lot of facetime in the media recently, leading demonstrations against the government's tuition fees proposals, condemning the Liberal Democrats for breaking their pledges and generally being "the chosen one".

But has anyone told the people marching behind him that his own proposals are FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL to the Coalition's?

A quick comparison:

Graduates earning less than £15,000 would pay nothing under EITHER scheme.

Graduates earning between £15,000 and £21,000 would pay MORE under the NUS scheme: yes, that's right MORE under the NUS scheme. Graduates on £15,000 to £21,000 would pay 0.3% of their earnings under the graduate tax and nothing under the coalition's proposals.

Graduates earning over £40,000 would pay LESS under the NUS scheme. Yes, again, it's not the way around you would expect. Top earners would only pay 2.5% under the NUS's tax proposals but would pay 9% under the government's loan and repayment scheme.

Now, I may be being THICK here, but the NUS appears to be proposing a system that is much more generous to the RICH than to the less well off.

Isn't that just a little bit… dishonest?


But how does Mr Porter manage to magic up enough money from the scheme, given that the better off will pay so much less? Ah, well he thinks that he has discovered a cauldron of free money.

You see, the NUS scheme will apply to ALL graduates, not just people starting new degrees in 2012. That's what they call "retroactive taxation", or changing the rules after people have already made their choices. After all, it's not like you can give your university degree BACK. Oh, but they've "had the benefit" of further education, says Harry Porter, it's only FAIR that they pay up now.

Well is it fair? The deal for those people was, surely, they would get an education paid by other taxpayers, and then they would pay their taxes to fund their children's education (not to mention their parent's pensions and their own health service and so on). Haven't they kept their side of the bargain? Isn't this just a sly tax increase on a lot of people who don't actually earn all that much extra for their time at university, a lot of nurses and teachers and, well, university lecturers?

Isn't that just a little bit… dishonest?


Then there's the time horizon. By which I mean, what happens as time goes on and your pool of graduates who didn't pay for their degree at the time gets smaller and smaller. At them moment, say Peter wants to go to University. Peter is going to pay for his tuition from graduate taxes he pays in the future, but he won't need to put in as much because the pool will also be getting contributions from Peter's dad.

In the fullness of time, at most once they have their twenty-five years of tax-paying, the pool won’t be getting that "extra" income from Peter's dad. When it's time for Peter's kids to go to university, they'll have to pay their tuition fees from their own tax contributions just like their dad… but they WON'T benefit from any extra contributions from Pete himself, 'cos HE'S already paying for his own education.

Isn't this pushing costs onto the next generation… which is rather what the NUS accuse the Coalition of doing.

Isn't that just a little bit… dishonest?


Mr Porter is trying to get a head of steam behind the idea of taking the Liberal Democrat's own proposals for "right of recall" for dealing with corrupt MP's who break the law and using them to "recall" Liberal Democrats who signed the NUS pledge (and, one assumes, subsequently break that pledge).

(Never mind the STUPIDITY of a proposal that would open EVERY SINGLE Opposition MP – all of Hard Labour and that Green and the Scots and Welsh Nasties and all – open them ALL to recall for failing to implement THEIR manifestos. Oh yes it would. Since CLEARLY failure to achieve an overall majority is not an excuse for not fully implementing your manifesto.)

In the words of one Student Union president, Mr Joshua Forstenzer of Sheffield University (no doubt quoted for IRONIC reasons):

"If they flip-flop or do a U-turn on this issue, they are betraying the electorate. It is a fundamental democratic principle that we should be able to remove them."

I'm sure Mr Joshua will be calling for the removal from their Parliamentary seats of Mr Andy "crash and" Burnham, Hard Labour's education spokesperson, and Mr Ed "Bully" Balls, Hard Labour's former education spokesperson… and Mr Alan Johnson and Johnson, one time Hard Labour education minister… and Mr Blanket the Security Blunket one time Hard Labour education minister, all of whom stood on a manifesto promise to not introduce top-up fees and then voted to introduce top-up fees. Otherwise, of course, he'd be flip-flopping and U-turning HIMSELF!

I have to say, the FUNDAMENTAL democratic principle is that if you think your representative told you one thing and then did another then you will get a chance to throw them out in less than five years anyway. But perhaps you think that deceiving your electorate is SO heinous that you just HAVE to take a pop at them earlier.

But if DISHONESTY is your measure for facing a RECALL, then shouldn't the first person on the list be… well… Mr Harry Porter himself. For being just a little bit… dishonest.



I think that a university education ought to be available to everyone. But I think that it should only be taken up by people who are academically inclined. Other people should have other opportunities.

The system we have at the moment means that fewer than half of young people get their opportunity because all the effort goes into getting as many as possible squeezed into a university course that won't necessarily be any use to them.

If you're not going to provide those opportunities to the people who DON'T get to go to university, then your system IS transferring a benefit, money in fact (the cost of subsidy), from the unprivileged to the privileged.

I suppose in those terms it's kind of fair to ask graduates to bear some extra cost of their education rather than raising general tax and getting people who never went to university to pay for it. (Though as I say, I'd rather have a RANGE of opportunities so there's something for EVERYONE)

The NUS proposals recognise that. That's why THEIR system isn't so very different from the Coalition's. It just seems that they want to make things easier for themselves by squeezing people who are already pretty squeezed.

And it seems they want to BLAME the Liberal Democrats a system that Hard Labour commissioned, that the Conservatories support and that they agree with.

Only WE made the government proposals FAIRER than theirs.

Remind me: what have they got those students marching for again?

I cannot recall.
.

Day 3593: These Tuition Fees STILL Don't Add Up!

Tuesday:


This is what it comes down to: where do we find twelve billion pounds?

With slightly under two million students, and fees between six and nine thousand pounds per year, apparently, plus some living allowances, at a BARE MINIMUM that's two million lots of six grand. Twelve billion quid.

Where can we find the cash?

More cuts? Twelve billion pounds is a tenth of the NHS. Or a third of the defence budget. Surely we can't slash more benefits!

So the government has chosen instead to tax students out of their future.

We've GOT to do BETTER than THAT!


Liberal Democrats, I KNOW it is NAUSEATING to be lectured by Hard Labour on this. They gave a manifesto commitment to not introduce fees… and then introduced fees. We don't need lessons from Labour about broken promises.

But it's EVEN WORSE when the two-faced, lying, bandwagon-jumping hypocrites are RIGHT.

They say we should be ashamed and we SHOULD be ASHAMED.

We DID promise to oppose rises in tuition. WE promised to get RID of the cost of tuition. And we SHOULD keep that promise.

The ONLY excuse for breaking our pledge would be if we could do something BETTER, and – even with the 30% worst off students paying LESS under this scheme – this still ISN'T BETTER ENOUGH.


The proposals now revealed by the Coalition for funding higher education are an at-least-doubled fee paid for by a loan repayable once you are earning over twenty-one thousand pounds (£21,000), with an escalating rate of above-inflation interest.

The simple consequence of this is that people earning up to a certain amount – for you standard three-year degree it's probably about thirty-three thousand pounds (£33,000) – will NOT pay off the loan within thirty years: for those people this is simply a GRADUATE TAX of 9% of your earnings over the twenty-one thousand pound (£21,000) threshold.

People earning above that amount will pay higher monthly contributions, but they will pay off the loan, so they won't be paying for the full thirty years, and in consequence will pay less in TOTAL.

You end up paying the MOST if you very-nearly-but-not-quite pay off the loan. So, for the hypothetical "standard" degree (3 years at £6000 a year, i.e. £18,000), people earning roughly £33,000 would JUST pay off the loan with their last repayment, having paid a total of slightly less than thirty thousand pounds (£30,000).

So the system proposed is moderately progressive. Up to a point, the more your earn, the more you pay back in.

The rather IRONIC fact is that INCREASING the fees actually makes the system MORE progressive.

Increasing the fees increases amount up to which you know you're not going to pay the fees off, i.e. increases the number of people for whom the graduate contributions is a straight 9% tax (limited to 30 years).

For example, at £9,000 per year, or £27,000 for a three year course, only people earning more than thirty-EIGHT thousand pounds (£38,000) will finish repaying.

AND people earning less than £33,000 do not pay any more than they would if the fees were £6,000 (because they have the SAME repayments – for them, it's just a bigger amount written off by the government at the end).

So, why stop at £9,000 then, you may ask. Why not make the fees £90,000 and make the scheme progressive all the way up to the few people earning two hundred grand who are the only ones who will ever pay it all back?

The answer to that one is that what the government calls "writing off" actually means repaying what's left of your loan out of general taxation, and this would be setting up yet another ridiculous bill for future taxpayers.

Which of course brings me back to the point.

This is just DISGUISED GOVERNMENT BORROWING, with a hidden TAX RISE on the poor future graduates to cover the repayments.


The MOST SERIOUS FLAW in our model of government spending is that over the last fifty years, we have been taxing fewer and fewer YOUNG people in order to keep spending more and more on health and pensions and care for OLD people!

We've tried increasing taxes; but the spending on the welfare state kept going up.

We've tried cutting everything else; but the spending on the welfare state kept going up.

We've tried borrowing until the government credit card smoulders.

I'm a bit of a HERETIC and I suspect we DO spend more than is good for us on the health service: it's grown from an essential protection to a national comforter, which we cling on to because it's there, making ever more use of overstretched services BECAUSE they are free-at-the-point-of-need when we might just occasionally be able to cope on our own if there wasn't a giant nanny there to make it all better for us.

But a LOT of our health spending is going on making sure that ever more retired baby-boomers have healthy comfortable and very, very LONG retirements in which to enjoy all the property they bought up before house price inflation made it impossible. And we expect a dwindling pool of working age people to pay more and more taxes to fund this.

And now, on top of that, we're expecting them to pay for their OWN education as well as the cost of OUR retirement AND cleaning up OUR mistakes.

It's really not on.


Instead of dumping the problem in the lap of the next generation, we should be addressing the real problems.

Firstly, Labour's dogmatic target of 50% of people to receive a degree has very badly served both students AND universities. Ridiculously academic qualifications are now widely seen as entry-level requirements to the jobs market. Half of the country get into universities; half are marked as failures. Well done, Labour: you've basically succeeded in recreating the 11+ only at 18.

We need to STOP trying to force every young person into the straight-jacket of a degree. 20% would be a more realistic target, and if you went to a state-funded school, you shouldn't have to pay.

But that's NOT a money-saving scheme, because we ALSO need to provide alternative routes, apprenticeships, city & guilds, incentives to employers, so that instead of the Hobson's Choice – degree or not degree, that is the question – people have GENUINE OPPORTUNITY to get into employment be it at 16, 18 or 21.

So we come back to where we started. Where DO we get twelve billion quid?

Well, almost regardless of the question of higher education, we have got to address our national addiction to the NHS and the welfare state before we lose control completely.

And at the same time, we need to look again at unlocking the amount of unproductive WEALTH bound up in property and investments benefiting very few.

And I'm afraid it means taking head on the power of the GREY VOTE. We've got to stop making promises to pensioners and start KEEPING our promises to young people.

Or sooner or later, they may just turn off the life support.

PS:

I should emphasise: all these figures are EXCLUDING the effects of INFLATION, which would make the REAL terms cost of the loan LESS. That is, repaying £100 in a year's time is less onerous than repaying £100 today (suppose you HAD the £100 – if you repay it today it's all gone, if you put it in a back and get a tiy little amount of interenst you will have something left when you repay the £100 in a year). It will – I guess – also affect the starting-to-pay point and thus the amounts repaid as you go along.

Also, these calculations don't work for AVERAGE salaries; there's just no way my simple maths can take account of the way people's salaries grow: e.g. imagine Jane earns £20,000 a year for three years, so pays nothing, but June earns nothing for two years and then £60,000 in the third year, so pays £3,510 in year three even though she's earned the same ON AVERAGE as Jane.

Day 3574: Miners and Tuition Fees. When you're in a hole…

Thursday:


The news that all the miners (AND their rescuers!) have been gotten out of the hole in the ground where they were trapped for the last two and a half months is very good and very welcome.

Though to correct Mr Paxo on the Newsnight Show last night, it's NOT a "rare good news story" it is actually a rare good story that you and your ilk decide to be news.

And, sorry to have to say it 'cos it sounds grudging, it wasn't a "miracle" either.

This rescue was a triumph of human endurance and ingenuity and engineering.

The laws of physics were in no way violated in getting the people out. Our Lady in the Blue Frock conspicuously did not appear from nowhere to gather up the miners and float them all back up through the solid rock to the surface. You achieve more with prayer and a highly trained team of specialist miners than you do with the intercession of his holiness alone.

In fact, if any inexplicable violations of physics were involved it was the unexpected total collapse of the mine in the first place. But not many people put THAT down to the intervention of le bon dieu, do they.

Right, sorry about that.

Well done to everyone involved. It is a joy and a relief that they all got out.

I have to admit, I was rather nervous at all the celebrating at getting the FIRST miner out, joyful as that was, and wanted to wait until we were sure that ALL of them would reach safety.

And frankly, THAT'S a form of SUPERSTITION too, so who am I to talk, eh?


Anyway.

Mr Paxo managed to SEGUE from the disaster of the collapsed mine to the disaster of the collapsed funding of our universities by referring to the fifty-seven trapped souls waiting for rescue on the Liberal Democrat benches, and if it's good enough for the ol' Rooster Booster, it's good enough for me.

Tuition fees have left us in a HOLE and no mistake, and it's no good saying that doubling them is in ANY WAY similar to abolishing them. Digging a second hole in no way fills in the first one.

It was good to see Newsnight's report where Sir Mr the Merciless made a firm commitment to keep to the pledge that he signed, even if it was then followed by Mr Hugs firmly nailing his jelly to the fence.

Anyway, we've just received the latest survey from Mr Former Deputy Lady Mayor Stephen at Lib Dem Voice and I thought it would be worthwhile sharing Daddy Richard's answers:

How should higher education be funded?

It should be funded from general taxation

We should be sending many fewer people to elite academic institutions, and instead be providing a broader range of alternative opportunities. And it should be paid for from general taxation.

In the party’s general election manifesto this year, the party stated: “The Liberal Democrats will phase out tuition fees over the course of six years, so that, after school, everyone who gets the grades has the opportunity to go to university without fear of debt, no matter what their background.” Almost all elected Liberal Democrat MPs signed the NUS pledge to “to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative”. Which of the following statements comes closest to your view:

Lib Dem MPs must continue to stand by these pledges and oppose any increase in tuition fees. This is the only honourable position

We are supposed to be the Party that is different, that keeps promises. Just because the others are shit doesn't mean we have to be too.

If you were an MP how would you personally vote?

Vote against

Are there any changes to the plans announced to date which would make you more likely to support recommendation based on the Browne Report?

(1) absolutely no market in university places (2) no commercial interest charged (3) substantially lower repayment rate (perhaps 1% or 2% of income not 9%), possibly stepped - with a higher rate for higher rate tax payers (3) substantially shorter period before write off

Under Browne's scheme, a person earning £21,000 pays 9% which is £1,890 a year, and would repay £21,000 (i.e. the "recommended" fee level) in eleven years, subject to having to cover the interest on top.

By my back-of-an-envelope estimate, a person earning £44,000 paying just 2% would have repayments of £880 per annum. If we write off the outstanding debt after 11 years, then they would repay a total of £9,680, broadly similar to the current level of borrowing to fund a three year course, meaning that no one paying basic rate tax – 85% of people – would pay more than at present, and in fact most would pay substantially less.

You might say that those graduates who do go one to benefit substantially from their further education might not achieve their higher earnings until later, and an eleven year cut off might let them off a lot of repayment, so perhaps a similar effect could be achieved from 1% over 20 years, which might seem more reasonable.

In this way the Liberal Democrats could be seen not to break their pledge and to make the Browne proposals substantially more progressive. The key questions are how much less in revenue it would this return and what level of cost to the Government of writing off the outstanding debts after eleven or twenty years is likely to be?


Thinking of the broadly supportive position Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have adopted in response to the Browne Report – and irrespective of your own opinion on fees – which of these statements comes closest to your view of why they’ve changed their positions:

Nick and Vince’s over-riding concerns are cutting the deficit and making sure the Coalition is seen to work in the national interest, and that is why they are broadly endorsing Browne

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and not answer:

Nick and Vince were never comfortable with the party’s position of opposing tuition fees, and see Browne as a convenient way of moving to a position they supported anyway.

We've been here before, remember, when the proposal that we might have to drop some of our policies came up and the abolition of tuition fees was the one that was floated widely in the press. THAT was seen as Nick flying a kite then, too. But I prefer to take him at his word when he said that he was totally committed to abolition, even if we were not able to do it all at once.

The problem is that we had a plan to bring tuition fees down from three grand a year; I'm not sure we have a plan to bring them down from SEVEN grand a year (let alone TWELVE).

What has been the impact, if any, of Vince Cable’s support for the Browne Report on your view of Lib Dem involvement in the Coalition?

I supported Lib Dem involvement in the Coalition in May, and continue to support it

But am considerably less happier about doing so


And what is the impact, if any, on your support for the Lib Dems:

I remain an enthusiastic party member

A tricky question to answer because I DO remain enthusiastic about the Party and indeed it's policy (which this flatly contradicts) so I reject the other alternative answer:

I remain an enthusiastic party member, but am angry with the party leadership

I'm not "angry" with the Party leadership. I think that they are wrong on this issue, but I see why in an impossible position they've made the choice that they have. I hope that with further negotiations a better solution will be found.

What is your own experience of higher education:

I attended a higher education institution.

Specifically Cambridge. And I went to Cambridge because I was very good at mathematics and Cambridge was the best place for maths. I would hate the idea that anyone would have to choose their University based on any criteria other than what was best for their chosen subject.

What is your own experience of higher education funding

I funded myself (or was funded by my family) and so incurred no debt

My fees were paid by the country. Thank you all! My maintenance was paid by my family. Thank you, dad!

Do you work in higher education now?

No

Though I *should* have Doctored in mathematics. I should have been a don.

Sorry.


Are you a parent of children who may be affected by the proposed changes?

No

Not unless Millennium can go to Cambridge. Do they take stuffed toys, these days?

.

Day 3572: Browne'd Orff

Tuesday:


It's been a BAD day, really.

First the Browne Report is published saying: "tuition fees are unfair… let's double/triple/quadruple them!"

Then Mr Dr Vince comes to the despatch box putting a brave face on it, saying we're making the best of a bad job.

The Coalition Agreement, chapter 31, says:

"If the response of the Government to Lord Browne's report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote."

But really ANY response short of an enormous RASPBERRY deserves a fluffy sight more than just abstaining.

We didn't pledge to "make the best of a bad job", did we?

We didn't pledge to "put a brave face on it".


No, we said saddling young people with tens of thousands of pounds of debt at the start of their career was FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG.

So now we're signing up to saddling them with twenties and thirties of thousands of pounds of debt?


Look, I'm not really sure how it CAN cost twelve grand a year to teach a student. Let me run a little maths past you.

Say you give a weekly tutorial for about an hour for three maybe four students. Maybe an hour's prep time, and another hour for marking. Throw in a couple of lectures, and an hour each to prep those and that's a day's work. So you've made what, thirty-six or forty-eight grand a year for one day a week of work.

Even at just three grand a head in fees you can pull in the same sort of money by having sixteen students and you STILL get Fridays off.

Yes I REALISE that your academics want to spend their time doing their own research rather than education their replacements, but it does SEEM like this teaching lark covers itself.

And yes, I REALISE that there are support staff to pay, librarians and lab techs, cleaners and caretakers, and that there are libraries full of books and papers and laboratories full of chemicals and cadavers to stock, but even so…

There are two million students in Great Britain, that's SIX BILLION quid in top up fees – even at the current capped rate! – or forty million pounds each for each of our Universities. You really SHOULD be able to pay for a staff of a thousand on that sort of money, and that's a student to staff ratio of 13:1 which is rather better than most schools manage.

Yes, I realise it costs ten thousand pounds a term to go to ETON, but you do get your bed and board and an unlimited supply of crumpets thrown in.

What AM I missing?

Some people say "why shouldn't the next generation pay for the cost of their own education – after all they'll benefit from it". But who paid the cost for the CURRENT generation? And by what right does the current generation pass off its responsibilities to the next. One of the reasons we say we MUST pay down the deficit – and I agree with this – is that it is WRONG to saddle our kids with enormous debts. And yet what is it that we are doing here?

And the very WORST of this is putting a "market price" on excellence, with no limit to the fees so that the "best" Universities can trade on their reputation to increase their income in a self-perpetuating spiral of exclusion.

Academia isn't for everyone, and we should do MORE to create alternative opportunities for other people, but if you are bright enough to go to University then you should go, and your background, low high OR middle, should NOT be a bar.

A university education ought to be a GOOD THING in and of itself, taking you away from home, meeting new people from all different backgrounds, broadening your horizons, teaching you new ways to THINK.

WE need to find new ways to think too if we are to solve the problem of funding our future. Hard Labour only saw Universities for the money people got out of going there. We have to abandon that line of thought and start again. We need a better answer.
.