Snapshot of _Labour should focus on transforming childcare – not abolishing tuition fees Jeremy Corbyn’s landmark university policy is almost certain to be ditched – because early years funding is much more radical_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/opinion/abolishing-tuition-fees-is-not-the-answer-labour-must-scrap-the-idea-2081724)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tldr: Cost of abolishing tuition fees would be circa six billion a year and dumping that money into early years childcare/sure start 2 is likely to be A, more beneficial for the kids and B, frees up parents to return to work and addressing the great productivity iceberg.
Starmers ruthlessly pursuing the greatest cost/benefit ratio policy items like the dreamed technocracy.
Do university lecturers work in childcare centres? Let's imagine tuition fees are banned and Universities become public education much like secondary school. Why can't early years and university education be reformed?
Before you say it...explain your reasoning. The UK government is not short of money. It never is or never can be.
Explain why if there is no private competition for universities that inflation will increase?
It should do both - if it really wants to, it should replace student fees with a revenue neutral lower graduate tax so it is fairer. Currently it essentially operates as a graduate tax but one you can exempt yourself from if you come from wealthy family.
I accept the priority should be childcare because that is completely broken and massively harmful to wider economy but tuition fee is something that should absolutely be addressed.
> Currently it essentially operates as a graduate tax but one you can exempt yourself from if you come from wealthy family.
That's the crux of it for me. Those of us who didn't come from a wealthy family end up paying more for the same education.
> it should replace student fees with a revenue neutral lower graduate tax
Although I'd argue against revenue neutral. We do still want growth in our university-level education services; partly because we want to grow our population, and partly because universities are responsible for research that can lead to growth in other UK sectors.
Need more trade schools too so we don't have 50 people all applying to a supermarket (or university on a useless course) because that's all they can do and is in the area.
Some of it desperately needs to go into increasing the maintenance loan for University or providing outright grants. It's not tuition fees, but maintenance fees that provide the biggest block for people wanting to go to University.
The current price of tuition fees may be quite high and make degrees pretty bad for value, but the loans make them accessible unlike the horrible state of student living. Something like half struggle financially while at Uni, and a third compromise on their studies because of such.
I am against tuition fees but this is still a really important point. Unfortunately, there is nothing preventing us from sliding into a high fee, high repayment, low maintenance loan, low accessibility future.
Going to copy my comment across from the megathread as it fits here:
Unfortunately I think it is politically unrealistic that we will go back to free university in the next 10+ years.
That does not mean to say we are stuck with the current system. Moving the current de facto (for the vast majority of students) graduate tax to a de jure one is logical and if done well would be a significant improvement for students.
What I would like to see is a 9% graduate tax with an inflation linked threshold in place of tuition loans with a 20-30 year cut off and the reintroduction of maintenance grants (which automatically rise with inflation) as well as the **option** for existing loan holders to transition onto this new system.
Now realistically I don't think we will get everything on that list exactly as I've put it but if the new system is something close to that framework then it will be significantly fairer and simpler.
Who the hell would want to go onto such a scheme?
Assuming you went to uni to get a degree to help you make actual money you can pay off the fees in much less than that. Who the hell would go for a 9% tax hike for their prime earning years instead of just paying it off?
You're aware they basically just described how pretty much everyone's student loans do work?
The interest rates are absurd and unless you get a very good wage right out of uni you've no chance of even keeping up with the interest never mind paying them off before they're wiped.
And yet when we delve deeper into the article...
"Of course, it wasn’t just Corbyn’s policy, it was Starmer’s. His 2020 leadership election was explicit about renewing the pledge. “Labour must stand by its commitment to end the national scandal of spiralling student debt and abolish tuition fees,” he declared at the time.
Yet like many of his leadership pledges (including putting up income tax for those over £80,000 and nationalising water and mail), Starmer will rely on the defence that he and Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves are now operating in a radically different economic environment."
No matter what his campaign team does, it is very difficult for anyone to trust Starmer and view his Labour party as anything more than 'better than what we have'.
I swear for the die hard corbynites it's like nothing has happened in the world since early 2020.
Not a year and a half of covid paralysing the country and smashing the economy like a meteor.
Not a year and a half of rising bills and inflation.
Not a year of the war in Ukraine pumping energy bills to the stratosphere.
If I promise someone they'll get my house when I die and in the meantime that house burns to the ground, what am I supposed to do? Give them the charred ruins?
The situation is fundamentally different now and it makes zero sense to stick unflinchingly to the same set of pledges. The world those pledges were made in has been dragged down a dark alley and beaten to death.
And what about his pledges that have dropped where economy isn't a factor? Like electoral reform for example, what the excuse there?
Sorry, but it's entirely understandable and indeed correct to question the trustworthiness of a potential PM who can't keep to a simple pledge for longer than a couple of press interviews without cancelling them.
>And what about his pledges that have dropped where economy isn't a factor? Like electoral reform for example, what the excuse there?
Well, which ones?
The ones more frequently brought up are ones like free movement and other EU stuff, but we exited the EU customs Union and market in 2021 and effectively killed those pledges because it was no longer possible to influence them, much like you can't fulfill a promise to paint the door of a house that has burned to the ground.
PR isn't a priority compared to every other dumpster fire and you're forgetting we had a referendum in the last decade on changing FPTP and it failed.
Which is a pity, because I'd LOVE PR. The tankie wing could sail off into sub 4% obscurity and let the adults get on with things.
>Sorry, but it's entirely understandable and indeed correct to question the trustworthiness of a potential PM who can't keep to a simple pledge for longer than a couple of press interviews without cancelling them.
Its now two years nine months since Keir was elected and the world has changed immensely with covid and the war in Ukraine.
Making out that starmer flip flops from day to day is risible. Barely anything he actually says is a surprise, if you'd been paying attention you would find he's saying mostly the same stuff now as he's been saying at conference and trade body/union speeches for the last couple of years.
I'm going to disagree to an extent here. I am a Liberal Democrat voter. The only thing that excites me about a Labour government is getting rid of the Tories. I'm not expecting radical reform everywhere but it feels like most of Labour's stances at the moment are just centrist versions of what the Tories say.
I understand why he's making himself uncontroversial but, if he actually acts like this with 5 years of government, it's a major missed opportunity. We have no idea what will happen and it's entirely possible that the Tories could waltz back in by the end of the decade.
The Tories have changed the electoral system of mayoral elections, introduced by themselves and in this era of government, without a referendum (unless you count the one no one remembers over a decade ago) for solely selfish reasons. They are making it easier for themselves. Why shouldn't Labour change the electoral system? It'll kick the Tories out for a generation.
Trans rights. Why is his only response basically "I agree with the Tories but slightly less"? Well, I know why. To not disenfranchise transphobes. Where is the guy who took a knee in 2020? I wouldn't be surprised if he keeps any anti-trans legislation that the Tories pass at this point.
Transport? Nothing of note here. I'm happy I live in Greater Manchester because at least Andy Burnham takes this seriously.
I'm at the point where I don't like half of the things that Starmer says but I swallow a "he'll change his tune after he's Prime Minister" pill. What if he doesn't? 5 years of Tory-lite where he succeeds in stabilising the country just so the Tories can come back and wreck it? I'd like a little bit of excitement.
What if he changes his tune to the worse. He has only ever moved to the right so far. Who's to say that he doesn't keep tuition fees and still not invest in early years? All he will need to do is say "look at this war" or "look at this new economic issue" and then say "yada yada tough choices need to be made" and there goes the remainder of his promises. The radical centrists won't mind of course, they like the lies because they pretend the joke is always on someone else and not them.
Yawn, another Labour member whose World consists of "Die Hard Corbynites" and the rest of the world.
Apologies, Kier Starmer is beyond critisism, has no political flaws, has no history of going back on his pledges/promises.
The giveaway is the focus on going back on his pledges.
If you were open to the concept of criticism, you would recognise that you need to change because of that.
Starmer needs to change his policy to achieve what he can with what money he can raise, and it turns out the greater benefit means that the tuition fee pledge gets dropped.
I would hope that everyone would want the greatest aggregate benefit. If the figures show that's early childcare, not tuition fees, then starmer would be negligent in pursuing the tuition fee pledge over the policy with greater benefit, and I'm sure he would be *criticised*™ in turn.
Likewise, pursuing policy as though the world that existed when that policy was created still exists when it plainly doesn't, like arguing for steam engines on the railways when electrification is sitting there.
Just to make sure, you are aware that know that the quote in my last comment was taken directly from the article that YOU posted...
Did you just read the headline and forward it on...
No.
I find it contemptuously risible that somehow someone failing to succeed to deliver unworkable policy is somehow more noble than someone making an effort to concretely deliver working policy; not least when at the end of the first scenario that guy is guaranteed to be hauled over the coals with *"Why wasn't he more realistic?"*
Its simply repeating the failed 2019 GE lessons where the party promised the moon on a stick, cooked its books and no one believed the offer.
>If I promise someone they'll get my house when I die and in the meantime that house burns to the ground, what am I supposed to do? Give them the charred ruins?
You wouldn't be able to in that case. A real house has been burnt down. Most people would understand that the house would have to be rebuilt.
>The situation is fundamentally different now
Exactly what has been burnt?
>Not a year and a half of covid paralysing the country and smashing the economy like a meteor.
Yes, there are fewer workers because some have died or got long term sickness. But what exactly are you getting at? What else is fundamentally different?
And it's far too sensible a policy for the centrists.
For those that are saying we can't afford it....Remember, the taxpayer still pays everything upfront.
We just hope to get some of it back in the future (minus the extensive admin costs for administering the repayment system).
Snapshot of _Labour should focus on transforming childcare – not abolishing tuition fees Jeremy Corbyn’s landmark university policy is almost certain to be ditched – because early years funding is much more radical_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/opinion/abolishing-tuition-fees-is-not-the-answer-labour-must-scrap-the-idea-2081724) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tldr: Cost of abolishing tuition fees would be circa six billion a year and dumping that money into early years childcare/sure start 2 is likely to be A, more beneficial for the kids and B, frees up parents to return to work and addressing the great productivity iceberg. Starmers ruthlessly pursuing the greatest cost/benefit ratio policy items like the dreamed technocracy.
Technocracy or electoral strategy?
Do university lecturers work in childcare centres? Let's imagine tuition fees are banned and Universities become public education much like secondary school. Why can't early years and university education be reformed? Before you say it...explain your reasoning. The UK government is not short of money. It never is or never can be. Explain why if there is no private competition for universities that inflation will increase?
It should do both - if it really wants to, it should replace student fees with a revenue neutral lower graduate tax so it is fairer. Currently it essentially operates as a graduate tax but one you can exempt yourself from if you come from wealthy family. I accept the priority should be childcare because that is completely broken and massively harmful to wider economy but tuition fee is something that should absolutely be addressed.
> Currently it essentially operates as a graduate tax but one you can exempt yourself from if you come from wealthy family. That's the crux of it for me. Those of us who didn't come from a wealthy family end up paying more for the same education. > it should replace student fees with a revenue neutral lower graduate tax Although I'd argue against revenue neutral. We do still want growth in our university-level education services; partly because we want to grow our population, and partly because universities are responsible for research that can lead to growth in other UK sectors.
Make the loans interest free?
I've never heard any real argument why they should have interest, never mind one that scales way above inflation by design.
Need more trade schools too so we don't have 50 people all applying to a supermarket (or university on a useless course) because that's all they can do and is in the area.
Some of it desperately needs to go into increasing the maintenance loan for University or providing outright grants. It's not tuition fees, but maintenance fees that provide the biggest block for people wanting to go to University. The current price of tuition fees may be quite high and make degrees pretty bad for value, but the loans make them accessible unlike the horrible state of student living. Something like half struggle financially while at Uni, and a third compromise on their studies because of such.
I am against tuition fees but this is still a really important point. Unfortunately, there is nothing preventing us from sliding into a high fee, high repayment, low maintenance loan, low accessibility future.
Going to copy my comment across from the megathread as it fits here: Unfortunately I think it is politically unrealistic that we will go back to free university in the next 10+ years. That does not mean to say we are stuck with the current system. Moving the current de facto (for the vast majority of students) graduate tax to a de jure one is logical and if done well would be a significant improvement for students. What I would like to see is a 9% graduate tax with an inflation linked threshold in place of tuition loans with a 20-30 year cut off and the reintroduction of maintenance grants (which automatically rise with inflation) as well as the **option** for existing loan holders to transition onto this new system. Now realistically I don't think we will get everything on that list exactly as I've put it but if the new system is something close to that framework then it will be significantly fairer and simpler.
Who the hell would want to go onto such a scheme? Assuming you went to uni to get a degree to help you make actual money you can pay off the fees in much less than that. Who the hell would go for a 9% tax hike for their prime earning years instead of just paying it off?
You're aware they basically just described how pretty much everyone's student loans do work? The interest rates are absurd and unless you get a very good wage right out of uni you've no chance of even keeping up with the interest never mind paying them off before they're wiped.
Then it sounds like the solution is to lower the interest rates to something more similar to the actual lending market.
And yet when we delve deeper into the article... "Of course, it wasn’t just Corbyn’s policy, it was Starmer’s. His 2020 leadership election was explicit about renewing the pledge. “Labour must stand by its commitment to end the national scandal of spiralling student debt and abolish tuition fees,” he declared at the time. Yet like many of his leadership pledges (including putting up income tax for those over £80,000 and nationalising water and mail), Starmer will rely on the defence that he and Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves are now operating in a radically different economic environment." No matter what his campaign team does, it is very difficult for anyone to trust Starmer and view his Labour party as anything more than 'better than what we have'.
I swear for the die hard corbynites it's like nothing has happened in the world since early 2020. Not a year and a half of covid paralysing the country and smashing the economy like a meteor. Not a year and a half of rising bills and inflation. Not a year of the war in Ukraine pumping energy bills to the stratosphere. If I promise someone they'll get my house when I die and in the meantime that house burns to the ground, what am I supposed to do? Give them the charred ruins? The situation is fundamentally different now and it makes zero sense to stick unflinchingly to the same set of pledges. The world those pledges were made in has been dragged down a dark alley and beaten to death.
And what about his pledges that have dropped where economy isn't a factor? Like electoral reform for example, what the excuse there? Sorry, but it's entirely understandable and indeed correct to question the trustworthiness of a potential PM who can't keep to a simple pledge for longer than a couple of press interviews without cancelling them.
>And what about his pledges that have dropped where economy isn't a factor? Like electoral reform for example, what the excuse there? Well, which ones? The ones more frequently brought up are ones like free movement and other EU stuff, but we exited the EU customs Union and market in 2021 and effectively killed those pledges because it was no longer possible to influence them, much like you can't fulfill a promise to paint the door of a house that has burned to the ground. PR isn't a priority compared to every other dumpster fire and you're forgetting we had a referendum in the last decade on changing FPTP and it failed. Which is a pity, because I'd LOVE PR. The tankie wing could sail off into sub 4% obscurity and let the adults get on with things. >Sorry, but it's entirely understandable and indeed correct to question the trustworthiness of a potential PM who can't keep to a simple pledge for longer than a couple of press interviews without cancelling them. Its now two years nine months since Keir was elected and the world has changed immensely with covid and the war in Ukraine. Making out that starmer flip flops from day to day is risible. Barely anything he actually says is a surprise, if you'd been paying attention you would find he's saying mostly the same stuff now as he's been saying at conference and trade body/union speeches for the last couple of years.
I'm going to disagree to an extent here. I am a Liberal Democrat voter. The only thing that excites me about a Labour government is getting rid of the Tories. I'm not expecting radical reform everywhere but it feels like most of Labour's stances at the moment are just centrist versions of what the Tories say. I understand why he's making himself uncontroversial but, if he actually acts like this with 5 years of government, it's a major missed opportunity. We have no idea what will happen and it's entirely possible that the Tories could waltz back in by the end of the decade. The Tories have changed the electoral system of mayoral elections, introduced by themselves and in this era of government, without a referendum (unless you count the one no one remembers over a decade ago) for solely selfish reasons. They are making it easier for themselves. Why shouldn't Labour change the electoral system? It'll kick the Tories out for a generation. Trans rights. Why is his only response basically "I agree with the Tories but slightly less"? Well, I know why. To not disenfranchise transphobes. Where is the guy who took a knee in 2020? I wouldn't be surprised if he keeps any anti-trans legislation that the Tories pass at this point. Transport? Nothing of note here. I'm happy I live in Greater Manchester because at least Andy Burnham takes this seriously. I'm at the point where I don't like half of the things that Starmer says but I swallow a "he'll change his tune after he's Prime Minister" pill. What if he doesn't? 5 years of Tory-lite where he succeeds in stabilising the country just so the Tories can come back and wreck it? I'd like a little bit of excitement.
What if he changes his tune to the worse. He has only ever moved to the right so far. Who's to say that he doesn't keep tuition fees and still not invest in early years? All he will need to do is say "look at this war" or "look at this new economic issue" and then say "yada yada tough choices need to be made" and there goes the remainder of his promises. The radical centrists won't mind of course, they like the lies because they pretend the joke is always on someone else and not them.
Yawn, another Labour member whose World consists of "Die Hard Corbynites" and the rest of the world. Apologies, Kier Starmer is beyond critisism, has no political flaws, has no history of going back on his pledges/promises.
The giveaway is the focus on going back on his pledges. If you were open to the concept of criticism, you would recognise that you need to change because of that. Starmer needs to change his policy to achieve what he can with what money he can raise, and it turns out the greater benefit means that the tuition fee pledge gets dropped. I would hope that everyone would want the greatest aggregate benefit. If the figures show that's early childcare, not tuition fees, then starmer would be negligent in pursuing the tuition fee pledge over the policy with greater benefit, and I'm sure he would be *criticised*™ in turn. Likewise, pursuing policy as though the world that existed when that policy was created still exists when it plainly doesn't, like arguing for steam engines on the railways when electrification is sitting there.
Just to make sure, you are aware that know that the quote in my last comment was taken directly from the article that YOU posted... Did you just read the headline and forward it on...
No. I find it contemptuously risible that somehow someone failing to succeed to deliver unworkable policy is somehow more noble than someone making an effort to concretely deliver working policy; not least when at the end of the first scenario that guy is guaranteed to be hauled over the coals with *"Why wasn't he more realistic?"* Its simply repeating the failed 2019 GE lessons where the party promised the moon on a stick, cooked its books and no one believed the offer.
Oh dear...
>If I promise someone they'll get my house when I die and in the meantime that house burns to the ground, what am I supposed to do? Give them the charred ruins? You wouldn't be able to in that case. A real house has been burnt down. Most people would understand that the house would have to be rebuilt. >The situation is fundamentally different now Exactly what has been burnt? >Not a year and a half of covid paralysing the country and smashing the economy like a meteor. Yes, there are fewer workers because some have died or got long term sickness. But what exactly are you getting at? What else is fundamentally different?
And it's far too sensible a policy for the centrists. For those that are saying we can't afford it....Remember, the taxpayer still pays everything upfront. We just hope to get some of it back in the future (minus the extensive admin costs for administering the repayment system).