Dear Lib Dems, this is a joke? Right?

17th January, 2013 8:36 am

From today’s Independent:

“The Liberal Democrats are considering whether to promise to reduce the £9,000 cap on university tuition fees in their manifesto at the next general election.

Senior Liberal Democrats sources told The Independent that the idea is among options being looked at by a working party on higher education policy.”

Is this how the Lib Dems plan to regain credibility in 2015? “We want to cut tuition fees…and this time we mean it…”

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • Monkey_Bach

    “… there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not …”

    (Luke 15:10)

    Would that the Labour Party repented its sins as far as Atos and similar atrocities go.

    • AlanGiles

      I was just trying to remember who introduced tuition fees in the first place?.

      Of course, LABOUR!

      • AlanGiles

        Are the two lickspittles voting that comment down, denying that it was Labour which introduced tuition fees?. Perhaps you re not old enough to remember.

        • Redshift1

          a) Loads of Labour MPs voted against it.
          b) It was highly controversial in the party.
          c) However much I don’t like tuition fees, that doesn’t blind me to the fact that there is a big difference between 3k and 9k.

          • aracataca

            This is correct Redshift. In addition this issue is also about making promises that are not kept. Labour did not promise not to introduce student fees at the 2001 general election ( they were introduced in the subsequent Parliament). At the 1997 general election it did promise not to introduce tuition fees and kept its promise during the subsequent 1997-2001 Parliament.
            Of course the Fib Dems made a big deal of their opposition to tuition fees at the last election and took a few seats with high student populations on the basis of that promise.
            Labour was committed to expanding Higher Education in order to include more working class people in it and tuition fees had to be introduced in order to fund that expansion. I am not a fanatical class warrior but when I went to University in the 1970s the overwhelming majority of people there were from middle class backgrounds – that was neither a fair, equitable or sustainable state of affairs. Like you I don’t like tuition fees but there is a clear difference between what Labour did and what the Fibs did in relation to this issue.

          • MonkeyBot5000

            The only difference between £3k and £9k is time.

            As soon as the idea of tuition fees was put forward, we knew they would just increase over time and unless Labour were expecting to be in power forever, they should have seen something like this happening when the Tories eventually got in.

          • aracataca

            ‘The future is unwritten’ – Joe Strummer.

          • AlanGiles

            Exactly. Once you set a precedent it is easier for somebody else to come along and enlarge on it. This is what angers me about Labour, pretending great outrage about issues like this and welfare reform courtesy of ATOS when it was they who started it. It is no good them pretending to be shocked like a Mother Superior outraged at being approached by a kerb-crawler.

            Had the New Labour shower not instigated tuiton fees (or Freud for that matter) the Tories/Coalition would have had to start from square one, and then Labour could be holier-than-thou.

          • Redshift1

            Well frankly I did argue at the time that introducing fees would run the risk of eye-watering fee hikes (like the 9k) by a future Tory government (didn’t envisage LibDem complicity at that stage of course), regardless of whether 3k was suitable or not, once the precedent of user-payment fees was set. So I agree with you there.

            Nevertheless, that doesn’t make the Labour position ‘the same’ or only ‘a matter of time’ different from the coalition position. Whether or not the Labour position was right, it was both qualitatively and quantitatively different from the Tories and Lib Dems who have basically transferred higher education funding almost entirely onto the user from the state (by making the move simultaneous with an 80% cut).

          • aracataca

            You are completely right Redshift the 2 positions of the Fib Dems and Labour on this issue are not interchangeable.

        • aracataca

          How does calling people lickspittles help the debate on this issue?

  • Pingback: The Lib Dem Dilemma | The Descrier()

Latest

  • Europe Featured News Swathes of Labour voters still unsure of party’s position on EU poll

    Swathes of Labour voters still unsure of party’s position on EU poll

    Nearly half of Labour voters don’t realise their party overwhelmingly wants Britain to stay in the EU, a new poll reveals. Despite Jeremy Corbyn’s decision, relatively late, to swing behind the Remain campaign, nearly half of Labour voters wrongly thought the party was either split on the issue, or backing Brexit, or they did not know. In fact, a huge majority of Labour MPs wants Britain to vote to remain in the bloc. More than a quarter (28 per cent) of […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Seats and Selections Luciana Berger in running for Liverpool City Region Mayor

    Luciana Berger in running for Liverpool City Region Mayor

    Luciana Berger will today become the third candidate in the race to get the Labour nomination for the Liverpool City Region Mayor election. Berger, who attends Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Minister for Mental Health, will announce her bid with a speech to local Labour members this afternoon. She is the second shadow minister to launch their candidacy for a new directly elected mayor position in a North West city, following Andy Burnham kicking off his Greater Manchester Mayor campaign earlier […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Luke Akehurst: There is no moral obligation not to criticise Corbyn

    Luke Akehurst: There is no moral obligation not to criticise Corbyn

    The lengthy piece by Danny Dorling published last week deserves a detailed reply. He starts by saying: “It is accepted wisdom that for a party to be elected in a first past the post two-party system it has to appeal to swing voters, particularly those in marginal seats.  As a result the two main parties have vied for the centre-ground. Consequently, in recent decades a large section of the electorate came to see little to choose between them. People have also come to believe […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Thatcher wanted the ‘managed decline’ of Merseyside. I want to manage its renaissance

    Thatcher wanted the ‘managed decline’ of Merseyside. I want to manage its renaissance

    Back in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher’s government came close to writing off Merseyside. There was a serious conversation about leaving our city and its neighbours to ‘managed decline’ and the tender mercies of her economic shock therapy. As her Chancellor at the time, Geoffrey Howe, patronisingly put it: ‘We must not expend all our limited resources in trying to make water flow uphill.’ We’ve come a long way since then. Since 2010, Labour has had the privilege of running Liverpool […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Burnham emerges as LabourList readers’ favourite for Manchester Mayor

    Burnham emerges as LabourList readers’ favourite for Manchester Mayor

    Andy Burnham is LabourList readers’ favourite to become the Labour candidate for Mayor of Greater Manchester. The Shadow Home Secretary announced his candidacy last week, and is up against Ivan Lewis and Tony Lloyd to go into next year’s election. Of those who voted in our survey, 45 per cent opted for Burnham, who came second in last year’s leadership election. Tony Lloyd finished some way behind with 22 per cent, while Ivan Lewis received the support of 12 per cent […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit