0 thoughts on “The Pledge”

1. RT @lfeatherstone: New post: The Pledge http://tinyurl.com/2fkwbsf

2. Lynne,

   Yourself and your fellow Lib Dems can harp on about how this is fairer as much as you like. What you can’t escape from is the fact that graduates will be paying back debts in the region of £40-£50K when maintenance costs and interest are factored in, double what they are paying back under the current scheme. Whatever the terms of the loan, more debt is more debt and it is this that will make many able students question whether getting themselves into that much debt is really worth it.

3. It doesn’t matter how much you try to dress it up. You signed a PLEDGE (Def: a solemn promise or agreement to do or refrain from doing something)
   By voting to raise tuition fees you have shown ALL your promises, ie PLEDGES are meaningless.
   I do hope you enjoy the trappings of office, I suspect you won’t be after the next election.

4. Tuition fees are secondary. The problem is that you voted to remove almost all public support from teaching of humanities, and a lot from science too. That is reason for huge rise in tuition. Then you devised a scheme that is probably as at least as expensive as present one for repaying enormous debt. You could have left support, and fees, as they are now and it would probably have cost no more. You could also have voted to consider properly the structure of the universities before rushing in with huge rise, after little debate.

   Having rooted for lib dems last time, I’m desperately disappointed in the lack of thought that’s gone into this rushed measure. I doubt that it will be forgotten quickly. Try this http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3829 and this http://www.dcscience.net/?p=3564

5. Jennifer, why does it matter how much the debt is? They could charge £1m a year in tuition fees and it wouldn’t matter providing the repayment scheme was fair and affordable. There is no reason why prospective students should be frightened about going to university by figures of £40-£50K, which are indeed greater than currently, when they will be paying back less.

   It is quite bizarre how in our society we have people taking out credit cards with enormous interest rates, no ability to repay, and dire consequences of failing to do so, whilst we have prospective students scared about taking a loan from the government at bargain rates, with affordable repayments, and no risk of a bailiff knocking at the door if unable to afford to repay.

   Let’s get real. Not all debt is the same.

6. Lynne, your premise and that of your fellow LibDem MPs is that we don’t understand the proposals and that is frankly patronising. You know that the index linking of the entry level can be easily altered at any time. The bottom line, and that’s what’s really important is that my children like the majority, if they choose to go to university will leave with debts of around £60,000 and that’s more than most people save in a lifetime. My working class parents were both the first in their respective families to have a university education. Their grandchildren despite high academic achievement may not have that chance.

   I’m not an occasional LibDem voter I have voted only LibDem in every local, parliamentary and European election for over 25 years. I may not do so ever again. However you try to persuade yourselves otherwise the fact is that you have gone back on a pledge and a generation of young people may never forgive you. It really is time to listed to the polls.

7. Lynne,

   Thanks for this. Well done for voting in favour on Thursday. You did the right thing. I used to be in favour of no tuition fees, but over the past year I’ve come round to realising that the existing system is neither fair nor workable.

   And Jennifer, yes we WILL harp on about how the new policy is fairer – because it is. It’s fairer than financing higher education at the cost of spiralling national debt. It’s fairer than financing higher education to the detriment of low-earning taxpayers. It’s fairer, given the limited resources, than putting higher education before primary education which is where the real social mobility issues arise.

8. I find the funding of higher education very difficult. I benefited from a grant and generally think that HE should be funded by a progressive taxation system – but I accept that its difficult and it may be that the fees system now proposed is the fairest possible way of arranging things in the current climate.

   Given that, it was clearly wrong of you to sign a specific pledge prior to the election so clearly committing yourself to voting against a rise in fees. The responsible thing to have done would have been to say ‘Look, I hope that we won’t have to increase fees, but if its unavoidable, I pledge to try to do it in the fairest way possible’.

   But that wouldn’t have been a very eye-catching promise would it?

   Also, given that you’re a minister, I’m not convinced that voting against the increase would have been an easier option. Surely a vote against would have caused a great deal of trouble for you and made it difficult to stay in your ministerial post?

9. I was a life-long Libdem-voter; but no longer. The Condem leadership have consistently ‘blamed’ the HE/tuition fees policy on ‘the state of the economy’. I have heard nothing about how the policy will evolve as the deficit is reduced. If you had the gust of your convictions you would have been saying that the 80% cut was a temporary measure, or at least would be mitigated over time. You aren’t saying that so I don’t accept that your policy is based on any short-term imperative. #Libdems #lostmyvote

10. “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament”

    That’s pretty clear, don’t you think? You didn’t pledge “maybe to vote against increases in fees, but maybe to vote instead for a huge increase in fees if we can figure out a way to make sure that people don’t have to pay up front”.

    Most people accept that since you didn’t form the government all by yourself, some of the things in your manifesto would have to go. But tuition fees is different: you made such a big thing of promising to vote against any increase in fees, that not to do so is seen as a huge betrayal of trust.

    I voted LibDem at the election, but I doubt that I shall do so next time. You have shown that you simply cannot be trusted.

    Seriously, Lynne, if you can’t see that, then it must be true what they say about politicians being completely out of touch with ordinary people.

11. Lynn this is exactly why people distrust politicians so much. They took it in spades from Labour but we really didn’t expect it from the Lib Dems.

    This whole argument of the promise only stood if you voted us into government is utter rubbish it doesn’t stand any level of honesty test.

    The simple fact is that in the UK people don’t vote for a PM or for a government they vote their own local representative to parliament, candidates state their policy and convictions and people assess these and vote accordingly.

    For my local representative to then turn around and say that because the country as a whole did not vote in enough of their kind and thus the promise they made to me doesn’t stand any longer is quite simply corrupt.

    Just because you think you have found a fairer system is totally irrelevant. You should have made that policy clear before the election. Your own web site states in spades how opposed to any increase in fees you are. You have banged on about it for almost a decade.

    Let’s also note that no one knows how this is going to pan out and the various parameters can and will easily be “adjusted” in later budgets, we all recall the magic of fiscal drag that Brown performed to perfection year after year on all sorts of allowances.

    We all know that the 21k limit will not rise with wages over ten years. It will drag behind and pull more people into paying more of the loan. We have just seen it with Haringey Parking, they start off with £1.40 and hour and with a few years it’s up to £3.00. The congestion charge starts off at £5.00 and before you know it, it turns in to £8.00.

    You’re bright enough to know how the system works Lynne and so are we!

12. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Pledge | Lynne Featherstone -- Topsy.com

13. So the poorer 25% will be better off, does this mean the “richer” 75% will be worse off? If so, then this is not fair again as the majority of people will still suffer. Secondly, who goes to University hoping that they’ll graduate and get a job with wages of less than £21,000. Surely, anyone entering HE should be aiming for more than the “minimum”! In the old regime of £3000/year, did people have to pay up front? Finally, why were such draconian cuts of 80% required and at such haste? some prospective students may be able to stomach a tripling of fees if services were going to improve, but in all likelihood the standard of teaching will stagnate. Would you, or anyone, be happy to pay 3x as much for a bottle of milk? £3 per litre of diesel? As a recent graduate i have seen a decline in University for the last few years with fewer teaching hours and more “self directed” (aka teach yourself) learning. Investment is needed but this is not the way to go about. You complain of no other viable alternatives, and i agree that their are shortcomings to many of the options aired but surely this could have been debated for a longer period of time. Up until the vote the policy was constantly evolving to try and get more people onside, so is it any wonder that many people are confused? You have apparently bought into the Tory ideology and effectively privatised HE and you want us to forgive your treachery? The cynic in me believes the haste was to prevent this affecting your poll ratings in 4/5 years time, but I and many others won’t forget your broken promises.

14. I really dont get this lowest earners will pay less and higher earners will pay more.

    “How are we going to catch up if we are going slower than them” – Bart Simpson

    So people graduating to lesser paying jobs will have to pay less back per year while the debt pot stays nice and static accruing interest. While a higher earner or someone with a nice trust fund will be able to pay it of without having to spend years watching interest get added.

    It makes as much sense as marketising education. Did you lot not take any notice of lessons that should have been learnt from the financial crisis?

15. What people are missing is that the subsidy removed from courses is applied to poorer graduates. If you compare two people doing a law degree. One goes into commercial law in the city and makes a mint. The other works in law centres on low pay.

    The financially successful one pays a lot more than the one working for the interests of humanity.

    I personally think that is “a fairer alternative”.

16. Why continue to paint people who do not approve of the Coalition Government plans as ‘not listening’, as people who have not read the small print or are ignorant of the issues? Frankly that is rude in itself. Plus – I believe the key word in that pledge was “and”….. Well I suppose 50% aint bad.

    Your list is not exhaustive and misses several key points that may influence that dissent:
    – all students will pay less per month than now but the repayment period is now over a much, much longer period – burdening graduates with debt from their student days well into their middle age.
    – you state that only the top 25% of graduates (approx), the highest earners will pay back more than they borrow. But this misses the point – as the amount they borrow has potentially tripled – most pay more as they are borrowing more.
    – independent analysis from a good source (one the Coalition Government likes to rely on) tells us that those from househelds in the poorest second, third and fourth deciles will pay more than they do now. As equalities minister you may feel uncomfortable about that.
    – your figures use the words “annual saving” which is rather misleading and if a credit card company were to use such language they would be chastised. It is a lower annual payment as the sum is spread over a longer period: no money is “saved”, merely deferred.
    – there is little information as to the change in eligibility for help, you mention 500K and 1 million respectively, is that number higher than the current system?
    – extra money has been allocated to support students, but with the removal or EMA and changes in the priority of funding – is this new money or merely funds shifted?
    – Student loans data may not impact on graduate’s credit score – but it still does not detract from the fact graduates will owe a larger sum and this will influence future choices.
    – so far I have yet to see anything addressing longer courses, those that require longer or further study and are mandatory – for example the professions, in particular doctors and lawyers. That could be a further 18K in debt which must be taken on if you want to be a doctor. I recently converted to law after a non-law degree: this cost me a further £30,000 all told. This will be an additional barrier to those from the poorer households – again negatively impacting on social mobility (also a concern for you as equalities minister?)

    I would very much like to be engaged by this debate but I am constantly being told I am not listening, or that I have not read the detail, that someone else did something before the Coalition came to power so I have no right to question what they are doing, or the “current climate” means different decisions now have to be made.

    My father used to say, “never be afraid to call a spade a spade”. Although that phrase makes me uneasy the underlying message is true – honesty. If you and your colleagues really feel that marketisation of HE is the way forward, that students should pay for their education in its totality and if this exacerbates social exclusion, trashes equality of opportunity or disadvantages the poor just because they cannot afford it plus you feel these are mere consequence to be lived with then just say so and stop wrapping it up in crocodile tears. Your constituents may still disagree with you but might at least respect your honesty.

    By the way, this is neither here nor there – I have never voted lib dem nor will I: you may be my MP but you do not speak on my behalf and you do not represent me.

17. Lynne, you can come up with the most wonderful technical formulae to justify your position, but it won’t wash. The fact is that you are a member of a government which has withdrawn ALL funding for arts and humanities and trebled student contributions to make up the difference. For us constituents (those of us who aren’t millionaires like you) it means our children facing massive debts just at the time they are starting out in life. Or choosing not to go to university. This is the destruction of the higher education system, and you have supported it.
    The petition to recall you as our MP now has more than 100 signatures. Take a look at the comments appended by signatories for a brief picture of how your constituents feel about what you have done.

    * Please sign the petition (if you have not already done so and are a voter in the Hornsey and Wood Green ward) at:

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/recallfeatherstonemp/

18. Please sign, if you have not already done so and live in the Hornsey and Wood Green constituency:

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/recallfeatherstonemp/

19. Is anyone able to go back over Lynne Featherstone’s speeches, election handouts, blog posts etc to compile a summary of the statements she has made
    which she has since reneged on or which were misleading in terms of what she was supposed to represent?
    It would be very useful to append such a document to the petition when we hand it in at Lynne Featherstone’s house (probably in Feb/March next year).

20. So all these people have got it wrong?

    This is amazing. Why would they go to all this trouble and get so upset, if there wasn’t a problem for them?

21. Whatever Lynne. When push comes to shove your a liar. There is no other word for it.

22. “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative”

    That was the NUS pledge that I signed.

    The new proposals are fairer. So – those who are angry at me and feel ‘betrayed’ do at least need to look at the comparative proposals and see if they are ‘fairer’.
    ———————————————————–
    I find that incredibly patronising. Your short time in Government has moved you further away from the “people” than i initially imagined. your use of the word “fairer” is laughable. Fairer to who? And I’m sorry, but in the “next parliament” you voted for an increase! You can either convince yourself that we are fools and hope that we believe your justifications or you can accept that you have failed a lot of people and try to rectify your mistake.

23. The only mistake Lynn and the party as a whole made was to fall for a pledge pushed by an organisation led by a Labour hack who makes out he’s an independent (and whose proposals for higher education financing are less fair). I can forgive her for putting a better policy first.

24. that’s the stuff Valerie Turpin, blame someone else for your own failings. Glad to see that after only a few months in parliamnet that the Liberal Democrats are playing the games. Integrity has long been abandoned!

25. Lynne – your figures are correct as far as they go, and there are certainly many ways in which the new system will be ‘fairer’ than the current one. The support for part-time students is very welcome, as is the raising of the threshold from Labour’s appalingly low £15K.

    However you fail to mention that the vast majority of graduates, including those on fairly modest graduate salaries, will payf their slightly lower monthly repayments for 30 years, rather than the typical 10-15 years they pay for now.

    Nor do you mention the gross unfairness about both the new and existing systems, which is that it places the entiure burden on the shoulders of future graduates without asking existing graduates, including most of the MPs, to pay a penny piece more.

    This means that in six years time there will be new graduates effectively paying a far higher marginal tax rate than existing graduates who are earning far more than them. This is not ‘fair’.

26. Lynne,

    “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament AND to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative”

    The two elements of your pledge were:

    a) to vote against ANY increase in fees

    AND

    b) to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative

    Now you have voted both to increase fees and to introduce an alternative that most of feel is not in fact fairer.

27. Martin – it was a failing, and I’m not pretending it wasn’t. I’m not blaming the NUS, either.

    Neil – the payments are for longer, but given that we need more funds (from somewhere) into HE if student numbers are to be maintained, I don’t see that there’s a better option. (I don’t agree with you that a graduate tax would be fairer – people would be paying that for even longer, for a start. Charging it retroactively on current graduates would be dodgy, too).

28. lynne, which part of “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament” don’t you understand?
    absolutely breathtaking.

29. Valerie T
    ——————
    It sure sounds like an excuse and to blame Aaron Porter is ludicrous. Nick Clegg wanted the student votes and used this pledge as a ploy… now the Liberal Democrats have apparently lost a key demographic.

    “The only mistake myself and others as a whole made was to fall for a pledge pushed by an organisation led by a Tory hack who makes out he’s a Libdem.”

30. You are being disingenuous saying that graduates pay less monthly. 75% will pay more – including, I would imagine, almost every graduate who lives in London. And for every student the amount of debt is trebled. The rest is doublespeak. Particularly your opening gambit, which reads like satire. “I promised to vote against an increase in fees and seek a fairer alternative – this is fairer”. You voted to increase fees. What are you talking about?

31. Too many comments here are missing the point, not least John Hemming.
    The primary argument is not about the mechanism for repaying the debt, but how big the debt should be in the first place.

    It is my understanding that the coalition agreement allowed Libdems to abstain on tuition fees. If all those who voted for it had abstained it would have failed.

    There is no excuse, and I expect you’ll pay dearly.

32. So, are we to believe that when the Liberal Democrats made the pledge what they actually meant was,

    “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative, unless the Tories can convince me that some right wing dogmatic loony idea to stop funding the universities, dump all the costs on students, and invent some ad hoc and easy dropped schemes to make it look ‘fair’.”

    You do not deserve to be in government.

33. “For anyone actually interested in the detail – I paste some below.” It is foolish and incredibly insulting to believe that people all object without actually understanding the proposals.

    “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative”

    If you actually read this statement, it implies that you agree all tuition fees are unfair. Hence that you oppose them and wish to introduce a fairer alternative (to tuition fees… this is the point of the pledge). You broke the promise you made… there is no way to wriggle out of that one.

    The implication that it is labour supporters opposing you for voting for a Tory policy is entirely wrong. Not all of us engage in the seedier side of politics – backing a side no matter what you really believe. Some of us have principles… the fact remains that you had no mandate to back this bill as you were voted for on entirely different (and mutually exclusive) grounds.

    You must realise this, so resign now. Restore some faith in democracy.

34. Lynne I can see there are some strong and highly articulate comments on here made against the stand you have taken. However on the ground I have spoken to many people who resent having to subsidise students when they have never been to university themselves. These are the silent majority who do not have the time to write on blogs or indeed rarely if ever read them. Many of the comments however well reasoned are from your political enemies who are merely trying to undermine you. Hang in there!

35. Martin – I’m not blaming Aaron Porter, I’m blaming us, the Lib Dem party as a whole. Signing the pledge was in keeping with Lib Dem policy on tuition fees – but it wasn’t in keeping with Lib Dem policy in favour of PR and coalition government. That’s where (as has been widely commented on) we made a mistake in signing it, given the likelihood that both of the parties we might go into coalition with were likely to want to raise fees, and that we’d have to compromise with either party.

36. Oh RobC

    I’ve never had cancer or been unemployed. I do not resent paying for the treatment of those who have cancer or who are being made unemployed by Lynne.

37. RobC

    I’m sure “On the ground” you also meet many people who resent paying their tax to educate children when they themselves are childless. Or paying for the NHS when they themselves are healthy. And I’m equally sure they are quite capable of speaking for themselves.

38. By the way I am the other Adam, not the one above who voted Lib Dem. I admit I have never voted Lib Dem. I feel pretty goos bout that right now.

39. The new proposals are fairer.

    That’s a pantomime argument. Oh no they’re not! The difference is I’m going to give some actual reasoning. The new system, as with the previous, is fiscally regressive, meaning that high earning graduates will pay a smaller proportion of their gross salary over 30 years than those on middle incomes (your monthly repayment comparators table is completely misleading as it doesn’t describe the length of time that different groups will be paying the fees for – those on high incomes will pay off the fees many years earlier, and in some cases decades earlier, than those on lower incomes). This is in complete contradiction to the Lib Dem policy aim of funding HE through progressive taxation.

    When the distribution of income contributions (as a percentage of 30 year gross salary) is compared with the preivous system, then the new system is marginally less regressive than the previous sytem (your government describes this as being more progressive). However, this does not take into account of the raising of the cap and reduction in the teaching budget of 80%. The burden of paying for HE is therefore being shifted from progressive general taxation to regressive tuition fees and as such is actually MORE regressive than the previous system when all taxpayers (graduates and non-graduates) contibutions are analysed.

    “The Council of Mortgage lenders has confirmed that higher fees will not impact on graduate’s ability to get a mortgage. ”

    That is absolute nonsense. Mortgage lending is heavily dependant on saving for a deposit, therefore the increased burden on graduates will hinder their ability to obtain mortgages as they will not be able to save as much. Furthermore, the increased burden will also hinder graduates’ ability to service their mortgage, meaning they won’t be able to increase their equity/save at the same rate and will hence be hindered in putting money aside in case of a change in mortgage terms (interest rates) or changes in personal circumstances (redundancy, reduced earnings, etc). The increased burden on graduates will clearly impact on their ability to borrow to buy a house and service the mortgage.

    Lynne Featherstone. You disgust me.

40. Lynne, did you vote on Thursday for all of these extras that you quoted that make the system fairer? Did you vote to raise the rate of repayment to £21,000, to stop part-time students from paying upfront, to lower the rate of monthly repayment, etc.?

    No, you didn’t. You voted, primarily, for this motion: “That…the higher amount should be increased to £9,000, and to £4,500 in the cases described in regulation 5 of the draft regulations in Command Paper Cm 7986, and that the increase should take effect from 1 September 2012.”

    Regardless of all the addendums that may perhaps later come into law, which individually considered would make the system fairer, is it really fairer to raise the higher amount to £9,000? Do you not agree that, addendums included, it would be a much better system to instead have a ca.£3,000 cap, when compared to a £9,000 cap?

    Then why did you vote ‘Aye’ on Thursday?

41. RobC, I supported liberal democrats because I thought they were the only party with any integrity. Brushing us aside as political enemies is foolish… we’re angry because we feel our vote has been abused. It is the (ex) liberal democrat supporters who are most angry about this issue…

42. @Liberal Neil says:
    “The support for part-time students is very welcome, as is the raising of the threshold from Labour’s appalingly low £15K.”

    The 21k threshold doesn’t come into effect for several years, byt which time it is likely to be equivalent to ~17k in today’s money. It isn’t a big a change as is being suggested.

43. The ‘Monthly repayment comparators’ is also misleading because it based on salaries in today’s money, whereas repayments will begin in several years time when 21k will be still 21k and those starting salaries will all be higher. Also, in terms of buying a house, most people look to buy a few years after graduating (mostly bacaue of the length of time taken to save for a deposit – almost nobody does or can buy a house immediately after beginning employment as Lynne is suggesting) by which time they will be on a higher salary than the starting salary, so those monthly outgoings being spent on servicing the fees will be much higher than suggested.

44. Steve Simmons says, “the increased burden on graduates will hinder their ability to obtain mortgages as they will not be able to save as much”. However, the proposed changes will decrease the burden by reducing the monthly repayments. That will make it easier to save for a deposit for a house, not harder.

    Steve also says “the increased burden will also hinder graduates’ ability to service their mortgage” but again, under the proposed scheme graduates will have lower monthly repayments so will be more able to afford a mortgage.

    How exactly do lower repayments make it harder for graduates to save for a deposit and then make mortgage payments?

45. In the current public finance climate it’s difficult to see how the government could have done much different.

    But stepping back from the public accounts crisis, conceptually I can’t see why there should necessarily be such a great distinction between funding for schools and universities. Secondary schooling is an extension of Primary; Tertiary (or 3rd) (including universities) is an extension of Secondary.

    Although some universities teach courses of little use, on the whole, education at all levels is useful to society as a whole.

    Despite wide speculation before the election that there was a good chance of a hung parliament (and with that, the possibility of a minority government or coalition) the controversial pledge was signed assuming that Liberal Democrats would not form part of any government and therefore would not need to share collective responsibility for new proposals. This is perhaps a lesson for all parties.

46. Kemlyn

    I’m quite sure they are capable of speaking for themselves but they tend to have better things to do than blog all day. Your point about the NHS is a red herring – I am pleased to pay taxes to the NHS because I use its services. I’d prefer to pay rather less of my taxes to those in higher education (even though society at large may receive some long term benefit) because the prime benefit is still to the individual graduate.

47. @RobC
    “However on the ground I have spoken to many people who resent having to subsidise students when they have never been to university themselves. ”

    That is the most ignorant comment I have read on here.

    At present, the average graduate earns 100k more over their lifetime than the average non-graduate, meaning they will pay at least 25k more in tax than the average non-graduate. Together with the current level of tuition fees, graduates contribute more to the state than the state funds them in tuition. To say that non-graduates subsidise graduates is a big fat lie. Furthermore, low-paid non-graduates receive more in public services than they pay for from taxation (which I agree with), so they are actually being subsidised by graduates, not the other way round.

48. Most of the points I wanted to make have already been covered above, so I just wanted to say two things:

    One is that it’s not simply about the fees. Prof Stefan Collini’s article in the London Review of Books (google for it if you’ve not read it yet – I’m not sure whether putting links in comments here activates spam filters or anything) lays bare the problems that the 80% cut in the teaching budget, to be replaced by fees, will cause in terms of turning universities into commercial enterprises focused on entirely the wrong things.

    Secondly, your compared repayment figures compare £21,000 in 2016 money with £15,000 in today’s money. Either you don’t understand inflation at all (worrying), or you’re being totally dishonest. If you truly believe that the system is an improvement, set out the facts honestly – don’t twist them to try and make it look better.

    I’m even more puzzled when you say “More than half a million students will be eligible for more non-repayable grants for living costs”, since the upper threshold for a partial grant is being reduced, from a household income of £50,000 to one of £42,000. The grant is being increased – but in reality it’s simply a shifting to a grant wholly from the governent instead of one comprising a government grant and a compulsory university bursary. The actual money the student receives does not increase at all.

49. Valerie T
    ———————
    Lynne states that “the new proposals are fairer”. In which way are they fairer than the rules currently in place. The only exception i can see is if you end up earning less than £21,000 for most of your career and you end up not paying anything back. Sorry, but i believe most of us would aspire to earn more than that and should be actively encouraged too. And what have the Liberal Democrats got in return for this “compromise” of their “policy on tuition fees”?
    It was unlikely that Labour and the Conservatives would join forces so the liberal democrats were in a strong position during the potential coalition discussion. They could’ve insisted that HE was protected… hell, even cuts to HE of 20% or so and relatively smaller fee increases would have been more palatable, as long as overall funding was increased overall. This would at least ensure that prospective students would be getting a better service for their money. If the tories weren’t receptive to this then the lib dems could’ve threatened to form a (admittedly weaker) coalition with Labour. In the end we have this and think about it; is privatisation of HE a tory or liberal democrat ideology? You haven’t so much compromised as sold your souls for power.
    Still sounds like Liberal Democrats are trying to excuse themselves by saying that the pledge is now null and void in a coalition. It takes a backbone to follow your principles, principles upon which they were elected, and sadly many of the Liberal Democrats representatives have themselves to be spineless.

50. @Adam Brookes
    I refer you to my comments at 12:55pm