Tories cock-a-hoop about Lib Dem disarray
James Forsyth 5:36pm
Every Tory I have spoken to this week has said the same thing, ‘aren’t the Lib Dems having a terrible time.’ The Tories are particularly happy because they see the Lib Dems’ credibility on economics taking a battering thanks to the total confusion over Cable’s proposed new tax on million-pound homes. They also think that the new Lib Dem policy will hurt the Lib Dems in a lot of the Southern seats the Tories are trying to win—Richmond, Winchester, Meon Valley and Taunton—as well as in three way marginals like Hampstead and Kilburn.
The other thing that is putting a smile on Tory faces is the Lib Dems downgrading their pledge on tuition fees. David Cameron says that the question about why tuition fees are fair is the one that he finds hardest to answer at Cameron Direct meeting (personally I think the case for tuition fees is fairly straight forward, students will benefit from their university education so it is fairer for them to contribute to the cost of it rather than for it to be funded out of general taxation). So, the Tories are happy to see the Lib Dems spiking their own guns on this. They are also hopeful that it will help them in Lib Dem held seats with large students populations like Bath.
As David said earlier, their conference is one of the few times the Lib Dems can be guaranteed attention outside of an election campaign. But they have made poor use of their last conference before the country goes to the polls. The weekend was dominated by Clegg’s ill-advised use of the word savage about public spending cuts, Monday by the unravelling of Cable’s new tax plan and Steve Webb slapping his leader down for suggesting that child benefit could be means-tested. Today, the main story is the Cable backlash that has been fuelled by the news that Julia Goldsworthy didn’t know about the new tax policy even though it was notionally in her own remit and Chris Huhne’s admission that colleagues hadn’t been consulted about it. Ming Campbell telling the party to “grow up” isn’t exactly helping either. It is hard to see how this conference isn’t going to end up being a net negative for the Lib Dems and thus a net plus for the two major parties.



Previous






Hysteria
September 22nd, 2009 5:49pm Report this commenteconomics taking a bartering ...???
Norman Dee
September 22nd, 2009 6:05pm Report this commentThere is a simpler answer to the question of student support, the problem is being caused by the sheer numbers of people going to University, and yet we are still desperate for the more highly qualified graduates, I suggest that those areas which are desperate for graduates give free tuition, and those who think the world is ready for another media studies 2:2 graduate can pay for the privelige themselves, or at least borrow the money as they can now.
Paul Williams
September 22nd, 2009 6:28pm Report this comment...personally I think the case for tuition fees is fairly straight forward, students will benefit from their university education...
Says who? I had a university degree and not only did it land me in thousands of pounds of debt, thus preventing me from getting on the housing ladder, but having a degree actively hindered me from getting a job -'you're overqualified' is the phrase I heard over and over again.
Given the chance again, would I go to Uni; no way!
Colin
September 22nd, 2009 6:34pm Report this commentThe tories have no chance in Richmond, sadly...
Wrong candidate. A real blunder by tory HQ. With right on Susan "sixth form" Kramer as sitting MP, and a rabidly anti resident, useless lib dem council, the seat is there for the taking.
However, the last thing we need is a champagne swampy character, with too much inherited money and a predilection for telling us off for owning cars and the like.
Laughing Gravy
September 22nd, 2009 6:36pm Report this commentAs a former academic and university administrator, I wish to add a comment about fairness that has not been made previously. For many years it has been policy that overseas students pay full cost fees. I think this was introduced by Shirley Williams. Now, home and EU students pay a government set fee and the government provides a grant to universities for teaching such students. The unit of teaching resource thus generated does not, however (and never has), equal the fee paid by full cost students from abroad. Is it fair that poor students from abroad should subsidise rich students from the UK and EU? Incidentally, the cross funding of various university activities is a scandal - why should funding provided for teaching french be diverted to fund research in chemistry? I can assure you it is.
The only solution is for all students to pay full cost fee (the government can subsidise individuals if it wishes), and for all university internal accounts to be made public so that we know where the money is going.
chris as usual
September 22nd, 2009 6:40pm Report this commentTo repeat - the Liberals should be attacking Labour after 12 years of total disaster - by not doing this they make themselves unworthy of consideration.
Personal attacks on Tories because that have been to Eton are entirely counterproductive.
The electorate will decide, and the aren't that stupid.
jon dee
September 22nd, 2009 6:49pm Report this commentClegg's juvenile smears of David Cameron have done nothing for his reputation and credibility and he has a lot of catching-up to do.
All this after swotting-up the value of the State Pension.
Colin
September 22nd, 2009 6:55pm Report this commentis this working?
Colin
September 22nd, 2009 6:56pm Report this commentnope...
Cole
September 22nd, 2009 7:12pm Report this commentOr can the Tories win Richmond? Seems that Goldsmith has spent £250,000 so far (see Electoral Commission website). presumably more to come?
strapworld
September 22nd, 2009 7:24pm Report this commentI think it rather rich that politicians that had a University education for free should now ensure that students start working life-IF they can get a job!-in serious debt.
One comment made was that students get a better job. BUT surely we should look at the positive that University Students obtaining degrees help the country, surely!
We should do our best to ensure that University is free for our home bred students.
Boudicca
September 22nd, 2009 8:04pm Report this commentLiving where I do in a village on the edge of the Surrey Hills, a fairly large percentage of houses are worth £million+ - but they don't have to be particularly grand to do so.
My local Parish councillor is a LibDem - Guildford Council recently ditched the LibDems in favour of a Tory Council. This is the kind of area the LibDems should be courting - but you don't do that by threatening to charge a tax levy against properties which middle-ranking executive levels aspire to.
£million+ houses in many parts of the country may qualify as mansions. In much of the SE they are just nice, detached 5 bedroom houses with an in and out driveway.
Hysteria
September 22nd, 2009 10:12pm Report this comment@Laughing Gravy "Is it fair that poor students from abroad should subsidise rich students from the UK and EU?"
Interesting question. What would not be fair is taxpayers money funding anyone other than UK nationals.
John Page
September 22nd, 2009 10:16pm Report this commentAre university tuition fees a good way to spend money? A specialist interviewed on WATO the other day said Yes, a far lower proportion of children from poorer families go to university than from middle class families. BUT compare the two groups when they have good A level results, and the disparity vanishes. So put any extra (ha!) money into improving education in schools.
Any Colour but Brown
September 23rd, 2009 7:12am Report this comment"chris as usual
To repeat - the Liberals should be attacking Labour after 12 years of total disaster - by not doing this they make themselves unworthy of consideration."
Does this, then, mean that the LibDems support the "achievements" of Labour over the last 12 years? If so, it put them in the same political wilderness that Labour belongs in.
EC
September 23rd, 2009 7:46am Report this commentBoudicca,
Surrey is full of airheaded women driving 4x4s extemely badly. Any deficieny they may have had drivng and parking a normal cars is magnified tenfold with 4x4s.
At the weekends Surrey males are little better. They drive these deadly machines far too aggressively and far too fast.
Their should be an additional driving test for anybody wishing to drive a 4x4. Also a really massive increase in Vehicle Excise Duty.
Tax the buggers off the road!
Stephen
September 23rd, 2009 7:49am Report this commentI live in a City where the local Poly was "converted" into a Uni. Some of it is good some bad. Sorry to sound elitist but I so agree with the posting that Govt fee support should be given to courses where there is a real job need and "Pot Hunters" seeking a 2.2 in say Media Studies should not be equally supported by Govt fee schemes. University education should be about the pusuit of excellence not POt Hunting
EC
September 23rd, 2009 8:07am Report this commentThere there!
Laughing Gravy
September 23rd, 2009 8:19am Report this comment@ Hysteria. I agree with your point. The solution is for all universities to charge full cost fees to all students (and they might differ between universities and between subjects within universities). Then individual students can be given government grants and/or loans to cover all or part of the fee. Public policy can be expressed by the degree to which students are assisted. For example, if more chinese language students are to be encouraged, then the fee support for those courses can be increased.
Paul B
September 23rd, 2009 8:46am Report this commentI see nothing unfair in foreign students, be they from rich countries or poor countries, paying large fees that subsidise students from this country. In fact I believe its a good idea. The foreign student always has the choice not to come here. We could try to do the same with the NHS.
Paul B
September 23rd, 2009 9:25am Report this commentThe proposal to let the government decide which courses it would pay for and which it would not pay for, is extremely dangerous. Lots of room for political manoeuvring there. Cherry picking the courses which it believes are right for the for the country and which are not. It would open up a can of worms. For example ,take the ongoing & current debate into green sustainable energy/man made global warming. A government could decide that global warming exists-deniers are flat earthers-and as a result cut off all funding to departments led by sceptics to that belief. Not beyond the imagination is it?
Grants would be a new weapon to assault the individual with keeping us docile and toeing the line, herding the population into the officially sanctioned viewpoint/sheep pen. Sweeties darlings.
The solution is simple. Adopt a market approach. Whatever the cost of the course, the student pays, (hopefully with foreign students paying a premium to reduce cost to home students) The student can then take a loan (or not) from me -the taxpayer- and pay it back at an agreed rate. Get the state out of universities, it can be done and it is desirable. Make universities compete. At present I can see no incentive for them to try to reduce costs. Subject the universities to market discipline and privatise them, raise money for HMG, which can be set aside as an endowment from which future student loans can be taken, although this will need topping up.
I do not see a right to a university education, which the rest of society has to pay for.
Polly Gamma
September 23rd, 2009 9:35am Report this commentOh come on Boudicca - don't act daft. You know as well as everyone else does that there's plenty of folks who think a 5 bed with an in and out driveway is a mansion. Or did you just wan't to hear someone say it again?
DM
September 23rd, 2009 9:35am Report this commentThe mansion tax is retrospective, not based on earnings or geography, reeks of envy and uses class war as a weapon. It's disgusting. Why mansion tax, why not two home tax, boat tax, holidays three times a year tax, 4 x 4 tax, two car home tax - anything? The whole thing is illogical and arbitrary. It's all about status symbols. What anyone has already spent their money on is theirs. It should not be taxed after the event. (Council tax is for ongoing council services). Most people can't afford fancy luxuries or one million pound homes. But many would like to work and save hard for them. Why hammer their aspirations or personal choice with THEIR money?
Polly Gamma
September 23rd, 2009 9:48am Report this commentEC does one qualify as an air head if they use 'their' incorrectly, and instead of 'there'?
EC
September 23rd, 2009 10:35am Report this commentDear Surrey wife,
Most definitely! However in my case the condition is only temporary. It is cured by the first pot of black coffee. Unlike your driving.
Polly Gamma
September 23rd, 2009 2:56pm Report this commentBest not to let your 'temporary' condition affect you when you are posting on blogs unless you are a bit of an air head.
EC
September 23rd, 2009 6:17pm Report this commentPolly(sic) Gamma,
Nice try. I'll give you another one for that.
THX1138
September 23rd, 2009 10:30pm Report this commentBoudicca I grew up in Guildford, couldn't wait to get out, in my day that awful snob David Howell was MP (we all thought he was gay). Boy George married his daughter Frances who writes turgid novels about upper class shagging and has inherited her fathers distaste for the lower orders from accounts that reach my ears.
As for 5 bed executive homes costing a £million plus in boring old Surrey in my part of norf LDN you be lucky to get a two, two down terrace with on street parking for that.
Frances
Back to top