Browse > Home / education, Liberal Democrats, Opinion / Courageous 27 vote in national interest

| Subcribe via RSS



Courageous 27 vote in national interest

December 9th, 2010 Posted in education, Liberal Democrats, Opinion by

student-demos-008

Today’s tuition fee vote is a milestone for the Liberal Democrat party. It is the first time the party has had to seriously consider the wisdom of a policy designed for permanent opposition from the perspective of government. Twenty-seven of the fifty-five present and able to vote decided to vote in the national interest for a policy that was well-designed, fair, and should ensure sustained quality in the higher education for the many, not the few. They should be congratulated.

We cannot attribute exact motives to the twenty-one who voted against and seven that abstained, there is no coherent support for a single alternative proposition and most rely on either borrowing from unborn children, or damaging jobs and growth with higher taxes. But we can reasonably assume many had an eye to local tactical concerns or found breaking the pledge difficult and put career or conscience before country.

The student protesters, or rather the minority who turn up for a rumble not a grumble, once again, have damaged the opposition case. Assaulting horses, vandalising property and endangering peaceful protesters by putting them in harms way. Aaron Porter of the National Union of Students I feel would have been wise to call for a mass silent protest to highlight those excluded by higher fees. Both a more compelling way to make his point, and as a way of marginalising the extremists.

The change in policy is not secure yet, the House of Lords may well demand further concessions and prove a target for a new pledge campaign. But this vote was an important hurdle and the party needs to rally round and move on.

20 Responses to “Courageous 27 vote in national interest”

  1. Jonathan Kirby Says:

    The Liberal Democrats are now seen for what they are – opportunistic liars. Many young people in this country voted for you in the hope of real change. They believed what you said in your manifesto. They believed your pledges about university tuition fees. Through your actions this sad day your party is now unelectable. Shame on you. This day will not be forgotten for a long long time.


  2. Michael Carchrie Campbell Says:

    No apologies, but I completely disagree. There are clear reasons why the 21 voted against the Tuition Fees proposal. They voted to keep their pledges that they made before the General Election. The 27 should hang their heads in shame. Shame at how they have rebelled against Party Policy. Shame at how they have portrayed the rest of us in the Liberal Democrats as liars like them.


  3. Steve Cooke Says:

    Just like Labour and the Conservatives became unelectable all those times they broke their manifesto commitments? They didn’t have to make compromises because they were in coalition either. If this issue makes the Lib Dems opportunistic liars (I personally think that it’s taken a lot of courage and strong principles to do what they believe is right, not what they think will make them most popular) – then there isn’t a single political party that wouldn’t deserve the same insult.


  4. Jonathan Kirby Says:

    This is what Nick Clegg said to prospective voters (quote):

    “Tuition fees are wrong… they need to be abolished. I want to do it as soon as possible.”

    Nick Clegg and all the other Liberal Democrats who voted against this pledge should be hanging their heads in utter shame this evening.

    Collectively you have revealed the Liberal Democratic party to be unelectable. How could anyone vote for you if your most strongly stated pledges can be cast aside so lightly?

    Your article states that the “party needs to rally round and move on.” No. This is a fundamental flaw right at the core of the party. It needs to be addressed and put right if you are to have any chance of electability in the future.

    Today’s shamefull vote will not be forgotten for a very very long time.


  5. Jonathan Kirby Says:

    To Steve Cooke:

    With regard to the ’27’ you state: “I personally think that it’s taken a lot of courage and strong principles to do what they believe is right.”

    But what they have done today is a 100% U-turn on what was promised in the manifesto. This situation goes 100% against the basic principle of the democratic voting system. Many young people voted for the Liberal Democrats on the belief that what you said was actually what you meant.

    Today’s shamefull vote has shown the party to be opportunistic liars. This vote has turned the Liberal Democrats into an unelectable party. Just ask any young person – there are many of them on the streets of London and elsewhere even as we speak. I don’t think many would share your view!


  6. Michael Carchrie Campbell Says:

    To Jonathan Kirby

    It only makes the 27 who voted for the proposal opportunistic liars. The rest of the Party has not changed its view. The policy is still to Scrap Tuition Fees.


  7. Jonathan Kirby Says:

    To Michael Carchrie Campbell:

    I agree. The ’21’ are men/women of their word. They are the ones who have shown personal courage and strong principles in today’s vote. But the party will stand or fall on the vote as a whole. And I stick by my view that in today’s shamefull vote the Liberal Democrats have become a party that is unelectable – and will be for a long long time.


  8. Dave Atherton Says:

    Conflicts of interest: Tory voter and activist.

    I am in no doubt that the Lib Dem MPs voted out of principle. However I see the student’s attitude to tuition fees the symbol of all is wrong about this country. The country has been made bankrupt by socialism and graduates by and large are going to be in a position to pay their fees back. It is the cradle to grave “someone has to wipe my backside” attitude that I find so wrong.

    Why should a cleaner, a server in a fast food restaurant, or a builder’s labourer possibly/probably on minimum wage paying taxes, subsidise people who should become the most employable.

    Sorry the MPs voted out of conscience but I think they are wong.


  9. John Says:

    The more I see of these protesters, the issue and the Labour party the more I like this coalition.

    Nick has got to now get even stronger – there are no popularity prizes in poltiica – if he has to be as resolute as Thatcher then so be it. In the end parties are re-elected if they stick to their guns and tell it as it is. No more pledges just do what’s right.

    As for Labour what can one say? All you need to know is that a walking blank sheet of paper told Radio 5 `I can’t guarantee to get rid of this system if elected as PM`.


  10. Jonathan Kirby Says:

    I know of many people – mostly youngsters – who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the hope of real change. They did so based on promises made in the manifesto. Tuition fees was a key pledge that many based their voting choice on. This is how democracy works.

    This 100% U-turn will be remembered as one of the darkest days in British politics. I wonder how many of those youngsters (or their parents) would vote Liberal Democrat again?

    Shame on you Nick Clegg and the ’27’. Shame.


  11. Jonathan Kirby Says:

    To John:

    You wrote: “In the end parties are re-elected if they stick to their guns and tell it as it is.”

    What planet are you on exactly?

    When the Liberal Democrats stood for election they made scrapping tuition fees a key pledge. You were given the opportunity of power largely because many young voters took you at your word and voted for you.

    Once in power – you promptly did a 100% U-turn. You have neither ‘stuck to your guns nor told people as it is’.

    A party that can’t be trusted to stick to its own key principles isn’t a party that is fit to govern. It’s basically a ‘trust thing’ – and through this action you have lost the trust of many people in this country.

    Shame on you.


  12. Psi Says:

    @ Jonathan Kirby

    It would be Nick Clegg and the ’26.’ After all he is a Libdem and therefore would be one of the ’27’

    I’m not sure I would agree the tuition fees was a “key” policy it may have been prominent but if you look in the manifesto:
    http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf
    Page 4 of 57

    the 4 Key areas are:
    Fair Taxes (£10,000 tax allowance)
    Fair future (breaking up banks, honesty about tough choices [hmm], Green Growth [?])
    A Fair Chance for Every Child (all about schools, no mention of students)
    A Fair Deal (Trust back in Politicians[hmm], Civil Liberties, electoral/parliamentary reform etc.)

    You may live a student area where local leaflets made more mention of the fees issue, I don’t and it wasn’t publicised around my area I was aware of it as I read bits of all of the parties manifestoes but I would not say it was “Key” (it first appears on page 20 of the Lib Dems) perhaps your view is skewed by where you live?

    If you were to be criticising a breaking of “Key” pledges of the fair future as they were not sufficiently honest about the scale of the economic mess we were in (as none of the parties were) or the fair deal over the restoring trust in politicians. However you then get in to a complicated position of what ifs.


  13. Jonathan Kirby Says:

    If anyone is in any doubt that the Liberal Democrats are now a spent force – just review the past 24hrs of posts on the Liberal Democrat Facebook page to gauge the depth of anger at the shameful U-turn of yesterday.

    And as a reminder, this is what Nick Clegg said to prospective voters PRIOR to the may election (quote):

    “Tuition fees are wrong… they need to be abolished. I want to do it as soon as possible.”

    Shame on you. The voters will never trust your word again.


  14. Psi Says:

    @ Jonathan Kirby

    Ah so it’s not a “key” pledge now just that it is electorally damaging?

    It makes a lot more sense if people would separate arguing about what is “morally right” and what is “electorally damaging” they are distinct.

    Some would say that trying to run (as Brown tried) a “investment [actually spending] vs cuts” was going to be electorally more effective but it was deeply dishonest. Possibly why a few of his colleagues shot him down, or perhaps they were concerned about their own credibility?


  15. Jonathan Kirby Says:

    To Psi:

    To the eyes of many young voters the issue of university tuition fees was perceived as being a ‘key issue’ on which they based their voting decision. And I believe that those votes were pivotal in giving the Liberal Democrats an opportunity of (partial) power.

    I’ve no doubt you are correct with regard to your comments about the fine wording of the manifesto. But hang on a minute – didn’t Nick Clegg and dozens of other senior Liberal Democrats sign the NUS tuition fee pledge in the full blare of media cameras PRIOR to the May election? Or did we all imagine that happening?

    Perhaps this link will clarify this point…

    http://images.newstatesman.com/articles/2010//20100907_nus_photo_w.jpg

    And also, didn’t Nick Clegg say this PRIOR to the May election:

    “Tuition fees are wrong… they need to be abolished. I want to do it as soon as possible.”

    Or did we all imagine that happening too?

    Perhaps a Google search on this exact phrase will clarify that point as well.

    Please report back once you’ve had the opportunity to check what was / wasn’t said PRIOR to the May election.

    Oh…. And you also might want to double check the dictionary definitions of the words “opportunistic’ and ‘liars’ as well. I think we might be needing these words shortly too ;-).

    RSVP


  16. Psi Says:

    @ Johnathan Kirby

    Firstly just for clarity I notice I have above referred to pledge when I was referring to policy (as I was responding to your comment about the manifesto).

    I don’t disagree that the MPs did sign the pledge, I’m not going to bother looking up the exact wording of things particular people said as your quote sounds like exactly what I imagine was said by people like Nick Clegg when campaigning, I happy to accept that the quote is accurate.

    As I pointed out I think you are being skewed by your perspective. No doubt the Policy of abolishing tuition fees was the top priority. As I imagine it was for many young people who were either in higher education or intending to go. I am not so sure that it was the top reason for those young people who were not intending to go (though there are no doubt some who were). In the TV debates and much of the publicity the highlighted, in the same way the manifesto did, the 4 areas above.

    I have said elsewhere that the NUS pledge was a stupid one to sign and they should not have done this, also that given that they did they should probably vote against it (basically as a result of the fair deal point of the campaign, but this does then leave me up in a difficult world of what ifs).

    This does not however make the policy (scrapping fees) one of the major policies. I imagine you had a particular interest in the fees issue therefore that issue would have stuck with you. Or perhaps you live in an area with a large student population where there would be more of that publicity. For me as an observer not in a student area and now having paid my fees (imposed by Labour) I was very aware of the Tax proposals, the pupil premium and the electoral/parliamentary reform. I don’t have children but the pupil premium stuck with me as it was repeated so often.

    As to the “Electoral wipe out” being predicted, remember that most student dominated constituencies did not vote Lib Dem so there is no Lib Dem MP to remove, think Durham, Exeter, Glasgow (South West?) etc. There are a small number of Lib Dems in seats with large student populations the students there may want to remove the MP but in most cases they opposed Fees (Jenny Willott, Julient Huppert) with the exception of Nick Clegg in Sheffield Hallam. That said Labour voted to introduce tuition fees against assurances before the 1997 election, then voted to triple them. As I pointed out above mots of student dominated seats remain Labour.

    We are now beyond the vote and if we look at the policy (which is the point most people on here are trying to discuss) for what it is it is a massive improvement on the status quo. The system as currently proposed is fairer and if anyone is put off going to university due to “Massive Debt” it will more than likely be due to the miss information put about by the NUS and Labour. An effective political ploy to damage your opponents but in no way good for people from poor backgrounds who need quality infomation.

    As I have said elsewhere I don’t believe Aaron Porter was trying to win this vote, I think his horizon is 2015 where he is looking to stand in a Labour/LibDem marginal with a substantial student population (possibly Sheffield Hallam).


  17. Jonathan Kirby Says:

    Thank you for your full and informative response.

    I’m happy to accept that the ‘tuition fees’ expectations were based on a ‘pledge’ rather than a ‘policy’ – but I can’t help thinking that this distinction was probably lost on a lot of people when they made their voting decision last May. We are agreed on one thing – it would have been better for Nick Clegg and the other MPs NOT to sign the NUS pledge if they didn’t actually intend to pursue it once in power.

    To my mind the fact the Liberal Democrats didn’t achieve full power – only power in a coalition – DOESN’T absolve the party from pursuing those promises (both policies and pledges) that it made during the election campaign. Surely this is a fundamental part of the ‘pact’ that exists between the electorate and the elected in a democratic society? As I’ve said before – it is essentially a ‘trust’ thing when a 100% U-turn is taken just months after the election.

    If this was an issue that the party felt strongly about I suggest a mass abstention would have been a more appropriate approach (at the very least).

    It is very difficult to see how a 3x increase in tuition fees won’t have the effect of forcing some youngsters to re-assess their future aspirations and decide that the university route is no longer for them. What a potential loss at a time when the country is facing mounting challenges in the economy, the environment and to our energy supplies. We will need engineers, scientists, ecologists, climatologists, economists, medics and a host of other highly skilled and motivated individuals to find solutions to the challenges over the next 20-50 years. In short – we should be seeking to maximise the intellectual potential of all our young people… which for many will be best achieved through a quality university education.

    Many young people are feeling both angry and let down by this apparent U-turn. Witness the protest marches (mostly completely peaceful), Facebook and Twitter comments etc from students, prospective students, parents, educational professionals and many others.

    I think the Liberal Democrats will have an uphill struggle to explain the benefits of this policy and the apparent disconnect in what was said before the election and what was done afterwards.


  18. Mike Says:

    Speaking as somebody who’s not paid off a penny of their (Labour imposed) student debt yet, it’s natural for me to have conflicting opinions about this policy.

    Firstly, it’s a big improvement on the Labour system. A huge improvement infact. A fair deal, finally, for part-time students, a higher repayment threshold and less reliance on the taxpayer.

    However I only have to cast my mind back less than a decade to remember how scary the idea of £3000 fees was, let alone £9000. If I were younger, would I read the Browne review? Probably not. I’d just be put off going to university by my lack of understanding and fear of debt.

    This is probably the dilemma MPs with student constituents are feeling too. The policy’s good, but it looks very very scary to those who will be affected.

    With NUS scaremongering making the situation a lot worse, I fear that none of the good in this policy will come to light.

    So I can see why 21 voted against, and I don’t think they should be criticised for doing so (the pledge was idiotic to start with – equating a “fairer system” with low fees and nothing else) but Clegg needs to stick to his guns now. We can’t flip-flop and dither just because polls tell us we’re unpopular.

    Thatcher needed to plough on with the agenda through bad polls. Same for Obama. Same for Clegg.


  19. Jonathan Kirby Says:

    The Liberal Democrats are now a spent force. They will never be trusted again by the electorate.


  20. Psi Says:

    @ Jonathan Kirby 11th December

    I think the intention was to pursue the policy, but that was only achievable if in power by majority. This was not the only stupid thing about the pledge, to fulfil it would have over time lead to a fall in available places in higher education causing the availability to be determined by rationing rather than demand for it.

    I agree that the Lib Dems have an uphill struggle to explain the benefits, given by their poor performance at explaining it so far. But I won’t feel sorry for any politician who is doing a poor job of explain a policy, it is a major part of their job. Senior party figures who can’t communicate the benefits of policies should not be surprised when they take a pounding in the polls, they should learn, adapt and get the message across. A lot of the current message is accurate but it does not “feel” honest and they will need to address that to survive.

    Hopefully the lesson will be learned.

    On the matter of young people thinking far more carefully about what to do after school, that may not be a bad thing. Much more useful information will needed to be provided as currently there is nowhere near enough. I know several people who went to uni aged 21 after a short time in the world of work and I think they benefited from the extra experience and I can think of several people who went to uni straight from school who may have been better off with a little more experience to get the most out of their time. Also many people who choose degrees that are seen as “leading somewhere” (like accountancy or law) may be better off doing a work based scheme (like aat or ILEX) and these schemes could benefit from high good quality candidates choosing to access them rather than university. Many of my friends at school had no desire to go to uni as they wanted to “get on with life” and improving access to those who full time education doesn’t appeal should also be a priority.

    None of this removes the need you identified above for high quality higher education, but the coverage of this debate so far has focused on only the issues that the NUS is interested in (18 year olds going from school or after a gap year with a couple of mature students thrown in as tokens). The matter of increasing choice of delivery along with increasing support for all these options seems to have been overlooked. These are vital to produce the skills you correctly identified as being required.

    @ Jonathan Kirby 15th December

    Maybe, maybe not. 4 years from the next election it is too early to make any accurate judgement.