As you may remember, following Vince Cable dropping a potential graduate tax, I claimed that Labour must become the new party of students. Well it seems the students agree. Yougov recently published a poll specifically for students on their voting intentions (
http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-Students-261110.pdf
) and well, it’s one hell of a swing.
In May the figures were amongst students Lib Dems-45%, Labour-24%, Conservatives-21% and others-10%. As of the survey between the 16th-19th November, the new figures are, Lib Dems-15%(-30%), Labour-42%(+18%), Conservatives-26%(+5%) and others-17%(+7%). So that’s right, the Lib Dems have been pushed into a miserable third place amongst students, -30% in the space of 6 months still shocks me though.
Yougov also asked a poll on government approval, which came to a net approval of -64%. 80% of students thought it was wrong for the Lib Dems to go back on their pledge and also 78% of students oppose the trebling of tuition fees to £9000 a year.
These figures are good for Labour, but we certainly should not take them for granted. And let us hope Labour’s policy review produces a graduate tax so we can retain our place as the new champions for students.
Max
These results aren’t really suprising, considering emotions are still at fever pitch over the tuition fee rise. What is shocking however is that the Tory vote seems to have INCREASED despite it being our policy! Also Im suprised Labour has only managed to pick up 18% of disaffected Lib Dems. So when you combine the increase in the “others” and the Tories vote share then you see Labours “lead” amongst students is only 5% which is hardly irretrievable.
I personally think that when students actually READ the proposals and when emotions have died down they will find that they are actually more progressive and fair than the current system. Fees were going up whoever got in, Labour, Liberal or Tory, but when all the windy rhetoric from the likes of the NUS is blown away and they actually digest our proposals they will realise that whilst the total figure may sound high the break down, interest and repayments are much fairer than the current system.
Well the measures might be “progressive and fair” in themselves. But it’s like saying that the government is going to send bailiffs to every house in the country, but the richer houses will proportionally have more taken, which in itself is I guess “progressive”, but it’s just not, well, right. However much the coalition dresses it up, creating the world’s most expensive state universities can in no way be regarded as fair.
How much does college tuition cost in America again?…
Yes, America it costs more, because they’re private not state, remember, I made a point of saying it was state universities :p
hhhmmm semantics. If you haven’t noticed the “market” has been creeping in to every aspect of our lives since 1979. I wouldn’t exactly call British universities “state” universities anymore, not in the way that you mean. The fact is across the world it is not uncommon (and is increasing) to pay upwards of £5000-10000 for your university education. In fact it is in keeping with a “left wing” tradition that those who have (or will have) the broadest shoulders economically, should contribute most. If your degree education will disproportionately benefit you in terms of future income then the idea is you should pay for that when you are in a position to do so.
We’ve noticed the market creeping in but we don’t condone and we blame it, by and large, on Thatcher.
Also we agree with your statement that “you should pay for that when you are in a position to do so” but we support the graduate tax instead of an increase in fees, because it spreads the cost more widely and doesn’t discourage young people from getting their degrees.
Thats where the problem lies Suzy. Say a graduate that studies law and a graduate that studies lady gaga studies both pay the same flat graduate tax rate how is that fair? It is a quick, easy fix solution. The proposed system, whilst imperfect, is by far the best option. All under grads are treated the same and expected to pay a flat rate BUT the repayment varies dependant on future success and income. That to me is by far the preffered option.
Also Suzy if you actually look at that other post where the minimum wage was ranked as the “top policy intervention” since 1980 Privatisation (or in other words marketisation) was ranked as the third most successful policy intervention. Im sorry but you can’t take credit for one and ignore the other. Marketisation has had a HUGELY positive impact on the UK as has the minimum wage.
Also I would like to point out that factually speaking policies such as the Minimum wage, sure start etc could. not. have. happened. Without Thatcher. FACT. That is the uncomfortable truth some Labour supporters have yet to come to terms with. For them it is a paradox; how could something so seemingly destructive and conflictual, have spawned something so positive?
Blair had the good grace and common sense (as did Mandelson) to concede in his memoirs that New Labour could not have happened without Thatcher. Its all very well spending money, making it is an entirely different ball game. Thatcher made this country great again and gave us the policies for lasting prosperity (imperfect yes, but incomparable with anything that went before) Her policies bankrolled sure start, they bankrolled the minimum wage and they bank rolled the investment in public services.
Money does not grow on trees. Thats where Labour went wrong under Brown. Tax and spend does not work. They spent Thatchers money and when they ran out they borrowed and borrowed and borrowed. Hence why we’re f***ed now. Labour can sit there and bang on about ooohhh look how well we’ve done; 3 of the top 5 policy interventions since 1980 have been Labour Party policy, but they neglect to mention that without Mrs Thatcher NONE of that would have been possible. Well I say they… Labour rank and file supporters forget to mention it. The people that mattered, the leadership like Blair et al, all mention it. In fact its in print. Perhaps you should all grab a copy of the various books that support this and study your own history before you preach to the Conservatives.
“Her policies bankrolled sure start, they bankrolled the minimum wage and they bank rolled the investment in public services.”
Sorry what does that even mean?
If all of this is down to Mrs Thatcher, it concerns the erosin of collective bargaining more than anything else.
“Flat graduate tax”? Progressive graduate tax is what we’re advocating, varying from 1-4% from what I can remember. You pay based on what you gain, whereas under the current proposed system the graduate who pays off their fees faster incurs lower levels of interest, due to length of time they are indebted, and therefore pays less than those who earn less. About half of graduates will never finish paying off their student debts under the proposed system, whereas under the graduate tax that we’re talking about, everyone finishes paying after a number of years leaving no one indebted indefinitely. It is a fairly pervasive myth that graduate tax would be indefinite, the straw man of many media attacks. The graduate tax system should be accompanied by grants for students from poorer backgrounds, as all systems should, and would include a salary threshold before which nothing is paid. Graduate tax is mildly similar to the proposed system, but is directly tied to what is earned after the degree, unlike the proposed system. It is highly unlikely the proposed system is being advocated by the government in order to reduce the national debt, firstly because it won’t be brought in until 2012 while the government promises to end the structural deficit by 2015, secondly there will be, as with graduate tax, a funding gap between tuition fees being paid and graduates earning enough to offset the cost.
Also, though the argument appears to lie more in political theory than any tangible reality whichever point is true, it seems fairly obvious to me “that something so seemingly destructive and conflictual” can form something good. It also appears in my eyes that the past inevitably influences what goes on later, to what degree is contentious of course. I wouldn’t go so far as to say Thatcher’s policies directly allowed the minimum wage and investment in public services, perhaps more general guiding ideology, though it really is a moot point.
As to “tax and spend”, though we’re going off on a tangent here so I’ll be brief, did national debt not decrease until the recession? At that point it became necessary to spend large amounts of money to prevent major banks from collapsing and as a result of tax revenue dipping dramatically. The current national debt is not a result of Labour spending too much on public services et al and the current cuts to public services are mainly a result of the Conservative Party’s opposition to, in their view, higher levels of state intervention than is needed. Cuts to public services, when the national debt decreases to a significantly high degree, will not be followed by restoration of spending, they’ll be followed by tax cuts, current Conservative strategy is just a very roundabout way of doing that. A tax give away will also likely occur not too long before the General Election, unless of course it looks bad. And I said I’d keep this brief. Tut, tut.
PS: Lady Gaga studies – exaggerated example that doesn’t actually exist. Media Studies, maybe, although the media is mildly important in modern society. Perhaps you mean to imply the only aim of university education should be to increase salaries.
First off I’d be very careful when saying a “progressive graduate tax is what we’re advocating” because your own Shadow Chancellor is on record as being against it and even your leader who is said to supported has claimed Labour Party policy is at the minute “a blank sheet of paper”. So I wouldn’t quote policy to me because truth is you have none, certainly not one your chancellor and leader can agree on anyway.
Secondly what I was getting at was Mrs Thatcher gave us a blueprint for economic prosperity. She made the country economically attractive to investors once again and revitalised the economy through a series of painful but ultimately neccessary reforms. What I was getting at was I find the hypocracy of some Labourites unbelieveable. They slam Thatcher as the devil incarnate and blame her for every negative aspect of British culture today. Unemployment too high? Thatcher did it. Bankers greedy and excessive? Thatcher encouraged it. Child poverty too high? Thatcher started it. Blame blame blame. They never give her an ounce of credit for her gargantuan achievements which made New Labours achievements possible. I reiterate; its easy to spend money and get all the credit for it, creating the conditions and taking the tough decisions neccessary to encourage wealth creation and investment is an entirely more difficult matter. For which by the vast majority of peoples standards Thatcher deserves enormous credit.
Thirdly Lady Gaga studies was meant as a deliberately exaggerated example but I’ll think you find it does exist.
By “progressive graduate tax is what we’re advocating” the point was really that the people currently advocating graduate tax are advocating a progressive graduate tax, whereas you were assessing a flat graduate tax. In fact, if you want, print out my comment, cross out the “we’re” and put “Suzy and myself” above it in pen. Or pencil, either will do.
You haven’t addressed any of the points I made about a progressive graduate tax being fairer than the proposed system the government favours and also the point that it has nothing to do with deficit reduction. Additionally, you didn’t say anything about cuts to public services being a very roundabout strategy to reduce government intervention and to lower taxes or about a tax give away not that long before the next General Election.
The “hypocrisy of some Labourites”? I could not say. There are a number of Labourites in the Labour Party that dislike Thatcher, certainly and I should probably write something about the Lib Dems, but you already know what I’ll say. At this point, I fear that if I press opposing points concerning the Mrs Prime Minister you may become unstable and come after me with either a hunting rifle or antique revolver, so I shall say nothing more on the topic.
Ah yes “Lady Gaga and the Sociology of the Fame”. Interesting… Though I can’t find anywhere in the UK you could do it, most famously taught at the University of South Carolina. You are still implying that the only aim of university education should be to increase salaries, however, though the moment for that question may have passed. Although, as the case is as it is, I withdraw the bit of the comment that says it doesn’t exist, because it does.
X
Oli has a point, although I can’t say coming after him “with either a hunting rifle or antique revolver,” would be entirely accurate, close ;p lol, but not completely accurate.
Also, just throwing this in here, just for the fun. For the past year…ish that I’ve been involved with this blog you’ve always been quick to criticise Labour’s record on tuition fees (which I’m not going to defend at all…and even before the election you were saying this). But then when it’s raised to £9k a year, you’re ok with that. Are you leashed to the party line? (Couldn’t resist the whole thing being thrown out there, lol…oh and the last sentence which you’ve used previously).
And onto a completely different topic. One thing I do find disgusting is the scrapping of EMA. Yes it’s open to abuse and I think it should be done on grade achievements to an extent. But it is a huge help to those who wouldn’t normally be able to afford. It’s like a couple of years ago when I was at College when the EMA buggered up for a while, college and sixth form students across the country were struggling to actually get into college. I know most people at my college used it for their bus pass and consequently without it, wouldn’t have been there.