In his keynote speech to the Liberal Democrat Conference, Party Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has outlined his goals for the Government and the country over the coming years. He reiterated his commitment to liberal values on the environment and human rights and his determination to ensure a fair chance for every child, saying "every child can do good things, great things, if only we give them the opportunities they deserve."
On 5th May you have a choice. You can keep the discredited First Past the Post system to elect our MPs, or you can choose a new and fairer system - Alternative Vote (AV). Back the campaign for change at www.YesToFairerVotes.org
WHAT'S THE ARGUMENT ABOUT ? What's the difference from difference from a graduate tax.
(Radio 4 'More or Less' with the Institute for Fiscal Studies - 10.12.10)
The department of Business Innovation & Skills has put all the projections on its website. but the IFS has done a far more detailed projection based on a range of likely actual earnings.
Does Farron add a new dimension in the Yellow-Red war?
Has he become the party's attack dog?
I must admit to have not been a fan of Tim Farron - the newly elected President of the Lib Dems and one of the leading opponents in his party in the university fees vote. But his fierce response to Ed Miliband's overtures to the yellow this morning suggests that we are going to see a very different tone.
This is going to be a difficult Christmas for many of us.
It's difficult a time of austerity not to fall victim to the politics of hatred and to read between the lines of what the media throws out for sensationalist headlines. To analyse the facts rather than to automatically believe the very negative response that's coming from some quarters.
Britain's economy grew twice as fast as expected over the summer, providing a boost for George Osborne as he fights Labour warnings that the coalition is jeopardising growth with the the most drastic fiscal retrenchment in a generation.
The chancellor today welcomed a "double dose of good news" after GDP grew by 0.8% in the past three months, and the ratings agency Standard & Poor's confirmed Britain's AAA credit rating. Britain, which is now considered a safe haven, is to be taken off the agency's list of countries on "negative watch".
"This Government is strongly opposed to upfront tuition fees. Indeed it shares Lord Browne's conclusion that we should extend exemption from upfront tuition fees to part-time students, currently 40% of the student population, who have been unfairly discriminated against hitherto."
Secretary of State for Business, Innovations and Skills Vince Cable's oral statement to the House of Commons on Higher Education Funding and Student Finance: Check against delivery "With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the future funding of higher education and student finance, in the light of the report published today of Lord Browne's independent inquiry. Lord Browne was asked to undertake his review in November last year. The review was set up by Labour on a cross-party basis, and that is how we want to proceed. I and my colleague the Rt Hon member for Havant want to thank Lord Browne and his Review Panel. The Government endorses the main thrust of the report. But we are open to suggestions from inside and outside the House over the next few weeks before making specific recommendations to Parliament, with a view to implementing the changes for students entering higher education in Autumn 2012. More detail will be contained in next week's Spending Review on the funding implications. But as a strategic direction the Government believes the report is on the right lines. Browne acknowledges that "the current funding and finance systems for higher education are unsustainable and need urgent reform". The issue is how. And that question has to be framed in terms of how the higher education sector contributes to the deficit reduction programme. There is also, I think, consensus around the idea that there should be no upfront tuition fees for students. That would seriously deter students from low and middle income families. This Government is strongly opposed to upfront tuition fees. Indeed it shares Lord Browne's conclusion that we should extend exemption from upfront tuition fees to part-time students, currently 40% of the student population, who have been unfairly discriminated against hitherto. The question, then, is how much the graduate contributions for tuition should be. We are considering a level of £7,000. Many universities and colleges may well decide to charge less than that, since there is clearly scope for greater efficiency and innovation in the way universities operate. Two year ordinary degrees are one approach. Exceptionally, Lord Browne suggests there should be circumstances under which universities can price their courses above this point. But, he suggests, this would be conditional on demonstrating that funds would be invested in securing a good social mix with fair access for students with less privileged backgrounds, and in raising the quality of teaching and learning. We will consider this carefully. We believe it is essential that if the graduate contribution is to rise it should be linked to graduates' ability to pay. On average, graduates earn comfortably more than £100,000 over their lifetimes compared with non graduates. But not all graduates benefit in this way. Some choose socially useful but modestly paid or unpaid work which may include time spent bringing up a family. At present the graduate contribution acts like a poll tax, and is not fair . Lord Browne has come up with persuasive proposals to deal with this issue. He suggests a £21,000 graduate income threshold before any payment is made, as against £15,000 at present, and to be linked to average earnings. And he suggests that a real rate of interest should be paid but only over that threshold. The effect is striking: 20% of graduates could pay less than they do now. The top third of graduate earners would pay more than twice as much as the lowest third. That is fair and progressive: the Government broadly endorses this approach and will examine the details of implementation. The principle of needs blind admission to universities must remain central. The cost of university education to individuals and the state reflects living costs as well as tuition costs. The Browne Report makes some constructive suggestions, . We shall come forward with detailed proposals which will make it attractive for students from families of modest means to go to university and will be fair and affordable including exempting the poorest students from graduate contributions for some (or all) of their studies. Lord Browne considered alternatives, including a graduate tax - as I believed new leader of the Labour Party favours. There are some key features in the current proposal for progressive graduate contributions which incorporate the best features of a graduate tax. It would be collected through the pay packet at a rate of 9p in the pound above the £21,000 threshold; combined with a real interest rate as Browne recommends, it would be progressive and related to ability to pay. But Browne identifies serious problems with a 'pure' graduate tax. The proposal is unworkable; does not produce sufficient revenue to finance higher education until 30 years from now; weakens university independence; and is unfair to British graduates as opposed to graduates living overseas. If there are any lingering doubts on opposition benches I would strongly commend a letter from the new shadow Chancellor to the new Labour leader 3 weeks ago, which reads thus: 'Oh, and for goodness' sake, don't pursue a graduate tax. We should be proud of our brave and correct decision to introduce tuition fees. Students don't pay them, graduates do, when they're earning [more than £15,000 a year], at very low rates, stopped from their pay just like a graduate tax, but with the money going where it belongs: to universities rather than the Treasury.' I do believe, moreover, that we need to look beyond the graduate population. 55% of young people do not go to University. We must not perpetuate the idea encouraged by the pursuit of a misguided 50% participation target, that the only valued option for an 18 year old is a three year academic course at a University. An Apprenticeship can be just as valuable as a degree, if not more. Finally, there is a challenge to all of us to promote a long term sustainable future for higher education. This has been a difficult issue for all parties in the House. Those opposite have ranged between being early advocates of a graduate contribution such as the member for Sheffield Brightside and the new shadow Chancellor, through to those implacably opposed to change - to the current labour leadership who remarkably have now embraced a graduate tax! The Conservatives initially campaigned against graduate contributions but reversed its position. The Liberal Democrats consistently opposed graduate contributions. But in this current economic climate that policy is simply no longer feasible. That is why I intend on behalf of the coalition to put specific proposals to the House to implement radical and progressive reforms to HE based on the Browne report."
Speaking during the debate on "fairness" in cuts, Ros Kayes, from Dorset, said: "We need to protect the poor... It will be a retrograde step if [Chancellor] George Osborne is able to cut like a grim reaper of death through benefits that people rely on."
By ROS KAYES in Liberal Democrat Party Conference 21.9.10
ROS KAYES - WE MUST HOLD THE LIB DEM LEADERSHIP ACCOUNTABLE IN THE SPENDING REVIEW
>
> Conference - I was one of the signatories to this motion because I believe that our party needs to hold our leadership to account on the delivery of social justice. I don't believe our ministers have got the balance right. Social mobility is a vital aim ; but when recession limits mobility for ALL of us, we need to protect the poor. Our welfare state combines the principle of the step ladder with that of the safety net - in times of austerity it is imperative that we protect the safety net. If Vince Cable's prescriptions for the economy were being sufficiently heeded in government I believe we would be protecting the poor - but it will be a retrograde step if George Osborne is allowed to run rampant like the reaper of death through benefits and services that ordinary people rely on. To identify those on benefits as making a lifestyle choice when there are no jobs available is simply contemptible. But to deny their children the chance to climb out of poverty is even worse. So I want to ask - where is the funding we promised for FE, apprenticeships, internships & employment schemes ? Both coalition parties promised this in their manifestoes. If we salvage any spending from Osborne's cuts it MUST be diverted to funding for growth. So that we as a party deliver on our commitment to social justice & regenerating our broken economy. Conference - in Bridport, Dorset , I am part of a community enterprise that is putting the real ' Big Society ' into action by starting our area's first skills training centre for NEETS & hard to reach youngsters in my deprived council ward. We've had a huge success rate - 80% graduating to full time college, apprenticeships or employment. When I asked Oliver Letwin , Bridports MP & proponent of Big Society last week about the liklihood of future funding he looked at me as though I was mad. Conference - there can be no economic regeneration without fully funded skills training. Redirecting money from universal benefits paid to the affluent could pay for this. You can't build a recovery on sand. I urge you to hold our ministers to account by supporting this motion.
