Dear Lib Dems, this is a joke? Right?

January 17, 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…”

  • 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

  • Comment Reaching new communities

    Reaching new communities

    This article is from Our Labour, Our Communities – a pamphlet of 10 essays by Labour PPCs, published by LabourList in partnership with Lisa Nandy MP. I am proud to be standing as the candidate for my hometown of Hastings & Rye, but I am equally proud to stand as a parliamentary candidate who is also half Chinese and half British. My mother is Chinese Malaysian and came to this country 41 years ago to be a nurse in Hastings and continues to […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour could lose out by not making it’s stance on Trident clear

    Labour could lose out by not making it’s stance on Trident clear

    Cutting Trident will be the price of support in a hung parliament. That’s the news reported from a meeting of the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Green leaders this week. With Labour’s slim lead and the SNP and Green vote threatening to impact on its share, this is a serious issue. Labour’s policy clearly states, ‘Labour has said that we are committed to a minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent. It would require a clear body […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Is Cameron “frit” of TV debates? Let’s try the empty chair threat

    Is Cameron “frit” of TV debates? Let’s try the empty chair threat

    Lord Ashcroft has told him he shouldn’t have done it in 2010. Lynton Crosby has told him not to do it in 2015. It’s no surprise that David Cameron is trying to wriggle out of televised leader debates during the General Election – even though he has said he is willing to take part “in principle”. Time perhaps to dust off one of Margaret Thatcher’s favourite barbs “He’s frit.” Neil Kinnock tried it in 1992 to try to goad John Major into […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Flexibility makes for good work, strong families and thriving communities

    Flexibility makes for good work, strong families and thriving communities

    By Stephen Timms MP and Ian Murray MP The Christmas period reminds us that modern life can be busy, hurried and demanding. The pressures of work, demands of family life and hectic Christmas schedules can prove stretching as we juggle competing demands. Increasingly the need for flexible work is driven by the complex shape of people’s lives; as parents go to work, struggle to make ends meet, perform career roles, take their children to school and activities and try and carve […]

    Read more →
  • News Labour MP questions campaigning roles of publicly funded advisers

    Labour MP questions campaigning roles of publicly funded advisers

    As the start of the long campaign begins today, curbing the amount of money parties can spend between now and May 7th, Labour MP Jon Ashworth has sought to clarify what precautions are being taken to ensure publicly-funded government advisers are not using their time campaigning. Ashworth has sent a letter to senior civil servant Jeremy Heywood, asking him to answer a number of questions about what kind of campaigning activity was permitted and undertaken by special advisers (SpAds) in […]

    Read more →