I'm not going to say that my party is perfect. That simply isnt true. But another day in the Con-Dem coalition, another broken promise. On Thursday, in the below building (yes, I took the photo!), the Liberal Democrats are set to split three ways on plans to raise student fees, with some supporting, some opposing and some abstaining.
Access to education is vital to our children and our childrens children. It is sad that something which will have ramifications for generations and something which was a key promise, has been left behind. In all fairness though David Davis, the former shadow home secretary, has become the first prominent Tory to say he will vote against the rises. At least there appears to be someone on the government benches with an ounce of dignity.
During the general election the Lib Dems vowed to vote against fee increases, however, Mr Clegg and Business Secretary Vince Cable - have both decided that the ministerial limo's are a bigger priority than those who voted for them just over 6 months ago.
On this chilly Monday evening I want to make a promise to you, the reader. No matter what your problems are, no matter who you feel has let you down in the past, whether you vote, are going to vote for another party, or as I hope, vote for me - I promise I will listen to you.
Now that is honest and radical from a prospective politician.
so what can be done to prevent student fees raiseing out of control, as a concerned parent and tax payer i fear that not all of my children will get the same education.
ReplyDeleteI truly think that education is a right of each citizen of our country. The simple fact is that if anyone wishes to enter into education they should be able to. This education should be available to each not on the ability to pay, but on the ability of the student.
ReplyDeleteThere is a case for contributions from students, but there is also a clear case from society benfitting from nurses, doctors, teachers and others in the public sector. We need to align our needs as a country with the needs of the student.
Pricing those who want to learn and better themselves out of education has nothing to do with a debt. It is purely ideological.
You havent answered the question though. What would you do to ensure those principles that you clearly state are brought into practice.
ReplyDeleteor to put it another way, what is the Labour party policy on student fees. How will you ensure all with the ability to benefit from a university education can do so regardless of ability to pay ?
Is this a graduate tax, a system of loans, payment out of general taxation and if a tax or loan paid at what level and over what period.
If you are proposing to pay for it out of general taxation, how do you justify that to the heard working manual labourer whose kids for whatever reason are unlikely to benefit from such a priviledge ?
My personal preference is to introduce a graduate tax. There are a lot of complex issues in this area, such as the benefit to the public. For example you would have to look at pay levels vs. the public good - a nurse vs. a journalist.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my stance is that if you have the ability to go to university, cost should not be an issue. You should be bound only by your own mind.
Therefore if you go onto earn a huge wage, why could there not be an additional charge to cover some or all costs over a specific period of time. If a career was sought in an in demand area, that charge could be dropped?
How would you answer the issue Shaw?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have a simple answer.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who meets the academic criteria for a course should be free to attend it. We rightly dont charge for primary or secondary education a policy founded in the knowledge that an education liberates the young from the situation into which many of them are born.
We live in a globalised village. The currency that matter is the knowledge and skills of our citizenry. Furthermore we live in an age where we can readily expect to be fit to work for many years more than our parents who in turn are living longer more productive lives than the generation before. I would put it to you that a system of universal education to age 16 is dangerously outmoded and is in part responsible for a generation of youth with poor job and subsequent life chances.
Politics is about choices and my choice would be to make the money available from general taxation to keep all in some form of education until age 21. This could be a university education for those for whom that is appropriate or it could be some form of apprenticeship backed up by vocational courses at proper world class technical colleges.
We have a choice as a country whether to accept a slide backwards into the huge class divisions and poverty of the 19th century as we decline in favour of an increasingly well educated chinese and indian dominated world or instead leverage our current historical advantage and build ourselves a high value knowledge lead economy.
I would however look at the funding model, I dont see charging the individual student as the way forward. I am happy for this to be funded out of general taxation at the expense of other areas if need be. As I said poltics is about hard choices. I do find it odd however that the one group that hasnt been looked at in all this is the group that perhaps benefits the most from a well educated workforce i.e. the employers. I would have thought it must at least be worth looking at whether they have a greater financial contribution to make in this area.
Shaw, thank you for your considered response to my original statement. With 100 days to go the the election, I wanted to remind myself of the mantra I set out when deciding to make the journey into local politics. The promise I wanted to make was one of listening, learning and acting in the best interests of the poeple of Southampton and Millbrook. After reading your arguments on this issue and can honestly say that I have learnt a new perspective. What has been missing from politicians recently has been honesty. I am being honest in saying that I think your idea has a lot of merit - particularly the idea placed within a global context. If we are no longer concentrating of manufacturing in its widest sense, then we do need to make sure that our future generations are fully skilled for the global challenges ahead. I beleieve that you idea (not without its challenges) could go some way to addressing that imbalance. Thank you for sharing.
ReplyDelete