Higher Education

Posted on by

Post the Browne report, Vince Cable’s been working to produce a more progressive way of funding Higher Education.

I have always believed that education should be free – for everyone – and always will. However, Labour ended the principle of free education with the introduction of tuition fees – and whichever way you turn in the current climate – those fees or costs are going to go up. I also despair that virtually the entire conversation around Higher Education is about the economics and nothing else.

Vince, as I said, has been working beyond hard to try and make this as good as it can be – and as progressive as can be.

A brief synopsis of the proposals:

1.       All students will repay less per month under this Government’s policy than they currently pay.

2.       The lowest earning  25% of graduates will repay less under this Government’s policy than they do now.

3.       The top earning 30% of graduates will pay back more than they borrow and are likely to pay more than  double the bottom 20% of earners.

4.       Over half a million students will be eligible for more non-repayable grants for living costs than they get now.

  1. Almost one million students will be eligible for more overall maintenance support than they get now

6.       Part time students will no longer have to pay up front fees benefiting up to 200,000 per year

7.       There will be an extra £150m for a new National Scholarship Programme for students from poorer backgrounds and we will introduce tough new sanctions of universities who fail to improve their access to students from backgrounds.

This is not coming to the floor of the House for a few weeks yet to come and is a difficult issue for Liberal Democrats because we cannot have the solution we, on the whole, want.

The Coalition agreement only goes as far as to say “We will await Lord Browne’s final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals … If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that the Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote”.

So the issue will be whether the Liberal Democrat MPs feel that the response to Lord Browne’s report is acceptable or not.

The NHS pledge which most LibDems signed up (including me) said: “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative”

Vince has made it quite clear that the pledge is subsumed by the coalition agreement – and indeed – because even if it wasn’t, as he said in Parliament, we cannot keep that first part of the pledge – it is no longer viable.

However, he also argues, that the second part of the pledge he has undoubtedly delivered on – a much, much fairer regime than under Labour.

I won’t make a final decision until the final proposals are on the table. I will have three choices in theory: support the Government (and as a Minister this would be the norm), abstain as per the coalition agreement  or vote against as per the NUS pledge.

0 thoughts on “Higher Education”

  4. You missed out a few little things in that synopsis:

    • Maximum fees will go up from about £3,000 a year to £9,000 a year.

    • A market will be created in higher education, encouraging students to go for the cheapest option rather than the best option.

    • Government funding for university tuition is being slashed, so that many students will be paying more for less.

    But I can see how they’d have slipped your mind. It’s not like those are important issues at all.

  8. Tom – she missed out something else too. Highest level of graduate unemployment since the last election.

    So why bother going?

  10. Like you, I signed the NUS pledge. We may have made ourselves a hostage to fortune, but as I said at the South Central Regional Conference there is a basic issue of integrity at stake. If we can do the exact opposite of a firm pledge that we made only months ago – why should anyone believe anything we say next time? For better or worse, we should keep our promise on this one.

  12. Nice one Steve. Do this Lynne and I just *may* consider voting for you lot again.

    Fail this test and you are toast. Well, you’re probably toast anyway but at least by sticking to whatever remains of whatever principles you have left you just *might* win a few respect points.

  13. A pledge to make graduates pay back less per month is not a suitable alternative to the pledge of Free Higher Education.

    Face it, you’re backtracking, and you can’t just blame the Labour government’s policies because you made those pledges with the knowledge that fees were already in place.

    Fight it, Lynne. Your constituents didn’t vote you in, twice in a row, to sit back and watch things get worse and you toe the party line.

  14. Hi Lynne,

    As a resident in your constituency, I’m very concerned that Lib-Dem’s are preparing to go against their pre-election pledge to scrap tuition fees. As someone who has been in the HE sector for 6 years (as a student and as staff) i’ve seen the upward rise in fees, and despite whatever people say poorer students are put off.

    We simply need to invest in our children’s future, not only for economic benefit but for society as well- and please dont say this isn’t viable in the economic climate, other countries are investing in education. Oh, and if you need the cash why dont you chase Vodaphone who have just avoided paying 6 billion in tax.

    Richard Connor

  15. My little granddaughter, aged 12, who is from a single parent family and lives on a council estate is full of hope and aspiration. She works hard at school and dreams of going to university. But if she does, then at aged 22, she will probably have a debt of £27,000 minimum, plus the interest on the loan set at market rates. Lynn, what do you think this does to her dreams and hopes? And what about people who do not become high earners, lawyers, doctors or accountants, but who bring to this world their knowledge of art, history, philosophy and literature. Do you think those choices of knowledge and learning will now suffer and be downgraded because the student has to the burden of debt. You signed a NUS pledge and I believe you must keep to it. How can anyone trust you or LibDems if you backtrack now. You should be true to your convictions, and you would gain some respect. Higher education benefits the whole country and society should share in its cost. Or are we back to the class system, where the rich go to university, and the working classes are beaten back into their labouring roles…

  16. Pingback: Tweets that mention Higher Education | Lynne Featherstone -- Topsy.com

  17. As a footnote; Lynn, I voted for you and LibDem because I thought you were a fighter and because of your policies on higher education amongst other things. Never did I imagine that this vote would support Tory plans to triple the cost of higher education. Be honourable and stand by your pledge!

  18. Lynne, I don’t know whether you intentionally missed it out or not, but the increase from £3,250 or whatever the current fees level is to £9,000 is *the* big issue here. Yes, there will be changes to other bits of the system – some welcome, some not so welcome – but the headline figure is nearly tripled. That’s what prospective students will see when they come to decide whether to go to university.

    Indeed, it reminds me a lot of the change in 2004, when ‘top-up fees’ came in in the first place. There were a lot of big improvements for students then – fees went from being up-front to being paid by graduates, there were new grants and bursaries available, etc etc. But the tripling of the fees, from about £1,100 a year to £3,000 a year, was the big story. It’s what the Lib Dems and the NUS and other opposition groups capitalised on, it’s what they attacked the then government on, and it’s what won the Lib Dems a lot of support. I was at university in Cambridge in 2005, where the Lib Dems won the seat from Labour almost entirely on the issue of top-up fees.

    Any attempt now to defend a massive increase in fees with the justification that it comes with a few more extra bursaries and other baubles would be utter hypocrisy. More up-front funding to ensure that poorer students can afford to go to university is certainly a good thing, but not if the way it’s funded means that they’ll be put off going in the first place.

    Oh, and thanks to Pat, above, for reminding me of one of the worst aspects of this new system: that the loans will charge real interest. At least under the current system the interest rate is never more than inflation.

  19. Hi Lynne,

    To be perfectly frank Lynne. The Tories have got their way on everything and the LDs have got virtually nothing out of the coalition, or at least that is the perception. Pupil Premium is one example; an LD policy which has been implemented in such a way as to be meaningless. Unless the LDs take a stand on this that perception will become cemented and will be impossible to change.

    Nick Clegg argued, before the election, that coalition government would mean that the LDs would be able to act as a moderating influence on whichever main party was in government. That has quite clearly not happened. This government is way to the right even of Margaret Thatcher’s. If the LDs do not start putting their foot down soon there will be nothing left to put their foot down on.

    The LDs need top start saying “No” to Cameron or the LD MPs left after the next election will be able to meet in a phone box. If they don’t say “no” to fee rises seems to me that you may as well forget about existing as a separate party.

    Natacha

  20. It’s very clear.

    Vote against and retain (indeed, enhance) your integrity.

    Abstain and look like you’re a fence-sitter (at best) and someone who doesn’t keep their word.

    Or support it and effectively the Tory Party.

    This really is make your mind up time for Lib Dem MPs. The years of being able ot chip in from the sidelines are long gone.

    I don’t think you need to draw the process out. You know what you should do.

  22. All very well – but where are the proposed alternatives. It would be 5p on basic tax rate to make education free. That is just not going to run. So – – alternatives to funding Higher Education otherwise just saying vote against is unlikely to persuade me that is the right option.

  23. 1. All students will repay less per month under this Government’s policy than they currently pay.

    Yes, but for how many months more will they paying?

    And please can you tell Vince Cable to stop saying that students will not pay anything! We all know that it is the “graduate” that pays and for him to try and dodge the issue is such a way is lamentable.

    “Also – would invite discussion as to what people think of the proposals and whether you would put any alternatives forward”

    People have tried to discuss this, and other issues, in the recent past Lynne and you’ve ignored whatever has been said. Why should we believe it will be any different on this topic? And besides, you know you’re not going to vote against anything irrespective of what anyone says or suggests unless it is something your Conservative chums approve.

  24. “All very well – but where are the proposed alternatives. It would be 5p on basic tax rate to make education free.”

    Lynne, when has education ever been free ? I was lucky to go to University when we might say education was free of cost. But, my parents paid taxes and assuming a proportion of their taxes went towards higher education then presumably so did part of the taxes paid by all my aunts and uncles – except none of their children went to university … So, we all pay taxes for some things that we don’t necessarily benefit from directly or for things we don’t necessarily approve of (like fighting needless wars and stockpiling useless nuclear weapons). And as for tax increases (never a vote winner!?) – it wasn’t all that long ago (pre-Clegg) that the LIbdems were advocating a 1p tax rise solely for the funding of education. I don’t suppose you would even contemplate such as thing these days would you Lynne? – and yet everyone I know in my extended “family” would support increased taxes earmarked for education.

    Oh, by the way, please can you define for me what exactly you mean by “progressive” ?

  25. Alternatives: keep the current (imperfect, but better than the government’s proposed alternative) system; the NUS’s modified graduate tax. There are two alternatives to be going along with, if you’re not prepared to consider making it actually free at the point of use.

  26. Tom – but the current system isn’t better than the alternative. If we can’t agree on the facts of the systems being compared then there’s no way for us to discuss. The new proposals are far better than the ones in existance. Graduate contributions turn out to be even worse. Yes – I can only go on the advice given to me as I have no means of assessing other than published analsees. You say the old system is better. On that we do disagree.

  27. Perhaps what Tom thinks was/is better (apologies if I got it wrong Tom) is the bigger picture, by taking in to account Lynne a very important factor that you completely ignore – the virtual removal of the cap on the amount of fees the universities can charge. This will mean that some students will inevitably compromise on what choices they make. And, when this is taken into consideration surely you also will agree that what we have from Willets & Co is not a policy for higher education it’s a marketing strategy! Remember the language they use; “customers” (students?), “providers” (the universities?), “a positive teaching experience” (learning?).

  29. Analsees Lynne!

    How appropriate. A new word for those of us who have very clear vision of someone who speaks out of their backside.

    You just don’t get it at all.

    The people here are the people who voted for you. It’s for them to tell you they don’t like the way you have reneged on so much that you promised. Not to come up with alternative policies to make you change your mind, such as it is. You are supposed to be the policy maker heaven help us all.

    What is so encouraging here is that so many people have found you out.

  30. I’m just struggling to understand how you’re justifying the new system on the grounds that, although fees are being tripled, poorer students will get more bursaries while wealthier students will pay more, and all graduates will pay more slowly over a longer period of time – because all of those also applied to the move to top-up fees, which you opposed. The difference is that top-up fees didn’t come with a huge cut in government spending on university tuition, and that the cap was low enough that there was no real market.

    My worry is threefold: first that the vast sums being spoken about will put off students from poorer backgrounds who tend to be more risk-averse, regardless of whether they would necessarily ever pay it all back (though presumably the converse of that is that it will be hanging over their heads for their entire working lives). £27,000 for a degree is a lot of money, however slowly you pay it back.

    Second, and this is sort of what Carl was getting at above, I think, that this will lead to a market in fees, and students – again, mostly those from poorer background – will increasingly feel they should study at a cheap university rather than the best they can get into. I know some of your new Conservative colleagues think this is actually a good thing, but I disagree: it’s just not possible for a prospective student to figure out whether going to university A is going to be worth an extra £3,000 a year, say, compared to university B. There are too many factors, and the outcomes are too remote.

    Third, and perhaps most worrying, is that with the removal of so much state funding, universities will have much less reason to stay in the public sector. The LSE has had virtually all its funding for teaching stripped away, since it doesn’t do courses in natural sciences, and is now seriously considering going private (which will mean they don’t have any cap on fees at all). It’s hard to come up with good reasons, from their perspective, why they shouldn’t.

  31. There are plenty of ways of raising the money to pay for free higher education,
    Making Vodafone pay the 7 billion pounds they owe in tax would help. Cutting trident, wars etc.
    It just comes down to how much you value higher education and where it comes in your priorities

    Also the graduate tax proposed by Labour is a far more progressive way of making students pay if that’s what you want to do

  32. Since university budgets have been cut and the higher tuition fees are expected to make up the shortfall, where will the money come from to pay for this? Either the government will have to borrow money to provide students with the tuition fee loan or universities will have to wait potentially decades for the money. If the government intends to borrow the money to fund this then deficit reduction/financial crisis cannot be used to justify this policy.
    Raising fees is the exact opposite of what we pledged to do at the election. Instead of burdening graduates with more debt perhaps we should be looking at making the likes of Vodefone pay the £7 billion in taxes that they owe.

  33. Hi Lynne,

    Alternatives;

    Making large companies, like Vodafone, pay their tax would be a start, £6 billion would obviate the need for these cuts.

    A graduate tax, proposed by th NUS, would work better than this ridiculous loan system. I really do not understand why the coalition has handed this one to Labour, it is a huge own goal, and one which is going to benefit ed Miliband more than anyone else. Are you going to give Ed Miliband anything else for Christmas?

    Slowing the pace of cuts, repaying the debt over a much longer period would also be sensible, and not alienate your core support. It is also time the wisdom of cutting without investing from growth is questioned. Much of the government policy is effectively digging us deeper into a hole.

    And TBH the question of alternatives is rather short-sighted. Every other country in Europe is expanding its higher education system right now to invest in the future and to prepare their young people to rebuild their economies. And if they can do it we certainly can, indeed we can’t afford not to. Cutting higher education is effectively digging the country further into a hole. In the end the proposed policy is the worst of all possible worlds.

    Unless you can find an alternative you will fail to achieve even the low level of support you currently have in the polls. You not only have to make some big changes in government policy but BE SEEN to make some big changes, and in areas which are going to make a difference to the sort of people who might vote for you. As it stands Ed Miliband is simply going to hoover up most LD votes, with a strong probability that most of the rest will vote Tory as well, if the LDs are seen as doing badly in the polls.

    I work in HE and I would lke to stay working in HE, but if necessary, and I never thought I would see myself write this, I may well become part of the Brain Drain. I like this country and this city but if I can only get a job in France, Luxembourg, Sweden, Switzerland or Germany, then I will have to move there. There are a number of universities in London that are on the ‘at risk’ list as a result from the government’s policy. It isn’t going to look good for the LDs if universities start to go to the wall given your committments before the election. If your funding system results in such a large cut in student numbers that universities start to close, you will lose far more credibility than David Cameron.

    It is time to make a choice Lynne, the worst thing you can do is support the current government policy, it is simply political suicide.

    Natacha

  34. Hi Lynne,

    Thanks for taking the time read our comments. I do have a few suggestions. I hope you can put them forward.

    The first is to encourage people to take degrees from home. That would save them around £3000 a year, so the net debt after a degree at £6000 pa would be the same as one on £3000 tutition fees (current) and £3000 rent. Then for those who don’t live near an appropriate university or who get into Oxbridge there could be a £3000 rent grant (not a loan). At least you will get £3000 more out of a percentage of students.

    Secondly, all courses ought to offered part time on very flexible terms. Therefore a 6 year part time degree would cost up to £4500 a year which could be paid upfront. Combining living at home with part time fees would result in people graduating with less debt, or even none at all.

    Thirdly encourage universities to develop commercial training for businesses as revenue stream, to supplement their income to fund undergraduate degrees.

    I personally think that you can’t go over £6000 for local students, and it should be limited to £3000 to those who don’t live near a good university and I definately dont support loans of over RPI.

  36. Lynne

    Why are you asking us for alternatives now? Surely you costed and researched your policies when you made the pledge to oppose increased fees and fight for a fairer system?

    You are being steam-rollered by the Conservative Party. Stop fidgeting and fussing, and stand up for your beliefs.

  37. Look, its obvious from your tone what you are going to do – you’re just trying to win a few brownie points for looking like you are struggling with it. I wonder how these desperate self justifications will feel at 4am? Though I take it you no longer have dark nights of the soul since you sold it to the Tories back in May.

  39. So what of Goves plans to kite mark courses (and close the rest like Arts or history)

    unlike quote excellent IT degrees
    bit of a joke that given the unemployment rate amongst IT degree grads
    or maybe Law
    aaaahh Government cut legal aid
    maybe administration
    aaahhh no civil service or local jobs

    no jobs then unless your Camerons Photographer

    or maybe i should know my place and get a minimum wage job or Macjob

    or maybe I wont go to a big University and do my degree from the local College as suggested by Gove, after all we dont want the rich mixing with us North Londoners with our bad accents and mix race attitudes

  40. This policy is a disgrace. It will collapse many institutions and subject areas. The LibDims are supporting a policy which runs counter to their supposed ‘principles’, and privatising HE in an ideologically debilitating fashion. Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences will disintegrate as they are only sustainable at the most elite universities. This is cold utilitarianism: there is no heart, no mind, no subtlety or nuance in this plan. There is cold accounting – and there the plan misses the huge engine for economic recovery that only HE provides. David Cameron can continue giving alumni donations to his alma mater: the fair to middling institutions will disappear entirely – as will the working class students – like me – who made it all the way through to a PhD – not because my parents had financial confidence and provided that culture for me – but because I am clever. What was a meritocracy has become a capitalistic and marketised commodity. The LibDims should be ashamed to be in thrall to Tory ideology in this way. The only thing that gives me comfort, is that neither party will recover from this.

    As Alan Johnson said at a Fabian Society conference two years ago: forget Iraq – the only thing that really nearly brought down the Labour party was tuition fees. Lynne – speak out now – please! Show yourself to have something other than power and careerist self-interest at heart!

  42. I think it’s perfectly acceptable for you to renege on the pledge as long as you resign and stand again in a by-election on your new position.

  43. Dear LibDim

    Rebecca got it spot on. There is more chance of Spurs winning the European Cup than there is of Lynne sticking to the pledge. She has absolutely no intention of rebelling. It drips from every sentence she has written today- if not before.

    Some ironies.

    The Libdonkeys have effectively saved the two party system on their own. 9% in the polls now and their core vote exposed.

    Lynne and co will have to ensure those worthless history degrees remain so we can have future generations know about Libdonkeys.

    Lynne’s own diploma from a higher education institution that likely comes within the bracket defined by Damian Green tonight on Newsnight as “bottom end”.

    Doctors will run all of the NHS but the only people who will be able to afford to be doctors will be very rich Tory offspring. Who don’t even use the NHS.

  44. Hey Lynne,

    I had something to say on this, but then I saw the word “analsees” and it went clean out of my mind.

    The Browne Report could be reworked to be much fairer than the proposal Vince presented. I understand you have to compromise, but this isn’t it – you’ll be responsible for turning our Higher Education system into a capitalist market.

    The admission you’ve made here is you believe party policy is unworkable, you have nothing to replace it with and so are willing to “go with the flow”. I think we can see where that’s going to take you.

  45. Pingback: Elite universities welcome flexibility to triple students’ fees | The Guardian Reader

  46. Dear Lynne

    I am a constituent who works in Higher Education.

    This proposal should be opposed for two overiding reasons:

    1. The removal of all government funding from arts, humanities and social sciences by 2014 to be replaced entirely by fees is not progressive. But to do it so rapidly will threaten the survival of several universities and colleges in London who have over 80% of students in those subjects – e.g. Goldsmiths, Roehampton, Kingston, Royal Holloway, Middlesex, London Metropolitan, London Southbank. Many, like middlesex, will be forced to expand overseas and reduce any ‘local’ connection.

    2. The reference in Willetts speech yesterday to ‘new providers’ is a codeword for the private, for-profit sector. The conservative ideologues would like to see institutions fail in London so that venture capitalists can take over the assets and create a new shells for private companies offering degrees – possibly BPP. Please refer to the University of Phoenix in the USA to see the kind of ‘sub-prime’ degrees offered there.

    The ‘progressive elements’ you see in the package are a Trojan horse for an experiment of cultural vandalism; a scorched earth policy which is geared towards removing public investment in higher education the better to allow other interests into the ‘market’.

  47. Jenny Willot MP, PPS to Chris Huhne has said the is sticking to her promise to vote against the fee increases.

    Andrew McGettigan is right. The government wants to force many universities to close and bring in dodgy US private sector universities. McDegrees…

  48. Dear Lynne,

    Surely someone such as yourself who has benefitted from higher education is aware of the importance to write concisely, clearly and without ambiguity. Please, therefore, can you explain what you mean by “progressive” as used in the opening sentence of your blog on higher education? I assume that you think it is important but I fail to understand what you mean.

    If you disapproved of Labour’s introduction of tuition fees surely you considered it regressive, and now tuition fees are to be increased doesn’t this mean that it is becoming even more regressive ?

    “Post the Browne report, Vince Cable’s been working to produce a more progressive way of funding Higher Education.”

  49. We are seeing the destruction of the welfare state and all the progressive policies in favour of ordinary working people established after WW2 – schools, universities, the NHS, social housing – all being dismantled piece by piece through policies of fragmentation, destroying true public accountability and cutting funding – all with the support of the Lib Dems.
    Most of us grew up with the NHS, free schooling and higher education, relatively low-cost public transport, a social security system in case of unemployment, subsidised housing and so on – it not only freed millions of people from poor health, fear, malnutrition and ignorance, but also fuelled post-war economic expansion and the development of a modern, literate society.
    That is all being destroyed now by the Tories and their Lib Dem supporters.
    Hope you can sleep at night, Lynne.

  50. Lynne, if you’re still reading this. I am a fairly moderate person who has in the past voted Labour but switched to your party for two of the last elections. That’s because your policies, and your politicians, made more sense to me.

    If you and your fellow Lib Dems do not vote against this increase in tuition fees I will not only never vote for you again, I will tell all the children I know why, I will tell my neighbours why, I will tell all my friends, all my colleagues and everyone in my family.

    I will tell strangers at the bus stop. I will tell strangers on the train. I will tell strangers in the shops and I will tell strangers in the street.

    If enough of us do this, you are finished as a party and finished as a political force.

    It’s not just the tuition fee pledge and the selling out to the Tories. It’s not the principle of having no principles. No. It’s the sheer gutlessness that I can’t stomach. That’s why Obama got such a bloody nose. Very little to do with politics. Everything to do with giving in, selling out and not standing up to those higher up the food chain than you. While bullying and berating those below you.

    Gutless. Useless. Pointless.