Skip to main content

The fees disgrace - blame LABOUR

Let's be very clear. It was LABOUR who opened the floodgates to the university tuition fees debacle that is now being imposed on our country. The LibDems have allowed it to happen; the Tories made it happen; but it was Labour who commissioned the Browne report, and it was Labour who set the whole thing up in the first place, by imposing top-up fees. As soon as the argument had been made by Charles Clarke that it was right for students to pay a substantial amount toward their higher education, and that higher education free at the point of delivery was going to be a thing of the past, then full-scale marketization became inevitable. It was only a matter of time. I made this argument at the time, as did Ian Gibson. We have, sadly, been proven right by today's news that the ConDems are going to bring in variable fees of up to £9k.
It is LABOUR who need to take the blame for having created the conditions for this dreadful outcome. (And it is only the Green Party (and the Nats, etc.) who come out of this with clean hands: see http://twitter.com/#!/TheGreenParty)
So: come the next election, let's all be clear about that. If you want to punish the LibDems over this, then there is no point in voting Labour.

Comments

Matthew Watkins said…
As usual for a politican you are missing out some vital information here like the introduction oof the tuitition fees originally in 1998 by Labour was based on the recommendations of the Dearing inquiry see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/jan/27/tuitionfees.students/print. Commissioned by the Conservative governement under John Major. So I think you'll find is has been driven as part of the ideological conservative (protect the rich screw the rest) agenda for the last 14 years. I don';t believe labour would accept the recommendations of the Browne report in the way that the conservatives have because they were committed to seeing more students going to universities unlike the conservatives who only want it for the priviledged few. Claiming that the Green Party would do any different is hollow as you won't have to carry through on your promises, just like the Liberals never thought they would so they too promised the world and surprise, surprise once they are given to opportuniy to stand by their promises they show that they have the least integrity of any party in this country.
Rupert why don't you show you have some integrity, put your money where you mouth is and come on the demonstration against the cuts and Browne review next weds will you, I will be there in the midlands camp, why don't you come and say hello.
Regards,
Matthew Watkins BSc MSc PGCE
5 November 2010 at 10:03
Rupert said…
Thanks Matthew. I'll have to meet you another time, I'm afriad; I can't be on the demo, I'm afraid, as I already have a madly-busy week at work and with other events. I have signed various petitions and so on against Browne, as well as blogging etc etc on it.
I don't appreciate your 'As usual for a politician' jibe. I am well aware of the facts behind Dearing; but did Labour _have_ to implement Dearing? No; they CHOSE to do so. Just as I believe they would have chosen to raise the cap to about £8k, if they had held on at this May's General Election.
So, let's skip the personal jibes and campaign together against this bastard child of Browne, Charles Clarke, and David Willetts.
7 November 2010 at 12:06
Rupert said…
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n21/stefan-collini/brownes-gamble
This is superb.
7 November 2010 at 12:06
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reasonable manners, in the blogosphere

Dear readers of Rupert's Read; One thing I am pleased about about this blog is that when we have had debates or disagreements here, they have virtually always been good-tempered. Because the norm out there in the blogosphere is often not like that. Take 'Comment is Free', for example, on the Guardian Unlimited site: the level of debate on CIF is pretty awful, frankly, in terms of civility. It is a very unpleasant place to take part in any debate, generally, unless perhaps (as most commenters do) one hides behind the veil of anonymity (which 'ain't allowed' here). And the truth is, in case any fellow commenters reading this don't realise it, that there are many many people who get put off even reading (let alone posting to) CIF because of the volume of plain nasty comments that they risk getting, when they do. I am slightly singling out CIF here, because I believe that this is actually one of the worst places on the blogosphere in terms of this kind of ...
15 comments
Read more

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...
16 comments
Read more