Labour refuse to make pledge not to raise tuition fees

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgnFBm4p6YU


Wow yeah, so they [Labour] lied in 2001 and said they wouldn't bring tuition fees in - then after winning the General Election they went and brought them in, and now not only will they not promise to reverse these rises in tuition fees (even if they did promise, given their past record who in their right mind would believe them?) they now also refuse to rule out another rise in tuition fees.

..and to think some of you are considering voting for this clown.

Oh and here is the UK debt as it currently stands (so before anyone blames the banks/financial crisis, as you can see - it was general government overspending and not thanks to the banking crisis) - one day this will all have to be paid back, and we will all be paying for it.


http://www.iaza.com/work/101211C/iaza19164386231900.bmp

[alexxxxx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgnFBm4p6YU


Wow yeah, so they [Labour] lied in 2001 and said they wouldn't bring tuition fees in - then after winning the General Election they went and brought them in, and now not only will they not promise to reverse these rises in tuition fees (even if they did promise, given their past record who in their right mind would believe them?) they now also refuse to rule out another rise in tuition fees.

..and to think some of you are considering voting for this clown.


to be honest it's better than lying and saying you won't and then changing your mind.

[Hecktix]

He didn't say he wouldn't he said he wouldn't say whether he will 5 years in advance of the bloody election, which is what anyone in the right mind would say! You cannot say what's going to happen until you get into Government and assess the full situation.

If Ed Milliband had turned around and said "yes as soon as I get into office I'll change this back" I'd have laughed at him, who knows what could happen in 5 years? This change could have a positve impact on our University system and the tories and LD's will be turning around saying "I told you so" - he wouldn't reverse the changes then, would he? However just as likely this change could have catastrophic impact on our university system, and then Ed Milliband probably would change it back if in power in 2015, or at least make amendments.

I would expect no politician to tell me, now in 2010 what they're gonna do in 2015 if they get in power, because quite frankly nobody knows what will happen between now and then. Any politician doing otherwise, is only more likely in my opinion to break their promises.

Enough with the Labour bashing, this is a good move by Milliband.

[-:Undertaker:-]

He and his party sit there telling you all how they are against this tuition fees and "oh isn't it awful how these dreadful tories and their lib dem sidekicks are making you all pay more in tuition fees?" and they are wanting you to vote for them because you actually, incredibly, seem to believe that this lot wouldn't have done the same thing (as proven by their past records).

He can't even make a simple pledge to such a big issue that he's making a big noise about, and I ask again; even if he did make a pledge not to increase fees yet again/go back to the £3,000 benchmark - why and what makes you believe a word he and his party say?

You are voting for PR stuntmen like him surrounded by spin doctors and yet you are somehow suprised when they bugger you over.

[Hecktix]

You seem to have ignored everything I said about not being able to know what'll happen in 5 years time therefore he would be an idiot to say he'd do something when he doesnt know what the consequences of the current policy will be :S

[-:Undertaker:-]

You seem to have ignored everything I said about not being able to know what'll happen in 5 years time therefore he would be an idiot to say he'd do something when he doesnt know what the consequences of the current policy will be :S

Oh well thats what anyone could say isn't it? "I don't know what will happen but vote for me anyway because you can trust me and my party" - if he's so against this policy he can easily make a pledge not to increase fees/bring fees back to the £3,000 benchmark. But he won't will he? this guy remember doesn't care about the finances of the country so its not a case of being concerned about money, so when he says "we don't know what will happen in 5 years" what does he expect to happen? what could possibly happen except the debt he ran up growing even bigger and bigger. No parliament can bind its successor. If you and many others are going to fall yet again for this trick (this time with even vaguer promises) then you deserve to pay more in fees as you are voting for it time and time again.

And if you think this guy is bothered about debt then look at the big green graph that his government ran up during their time in office.

[Technologic]

Makes perfect political sense "Underpromise and overperform" is what he said, much better than "Overpromise and underperform".

[-:Undertaker:-]

Makes perfect political sense "Underpromise and overperform" is what he said, much better than "Overpromise and underperform".

I think you'll find in normal speak and not political speak thats called not giving an answer to a very simple question. Mr Miliband and the Labour Party seem to feel very strongly about this issue, so you'd expect them to have some sort of opinion on it/draft policy - not a vague answer.

Or is it the case that they actually agree with the Conservatives/Liberal Democrats but say they don't for your vote come the next election.. Hmm not a hard one really given their past performance on this issue and various other issues.

[Technologic]

I think you'll find in normal speak and not political speak thats called not giving an answer to a very simple question. Mr Miliband and the Labour Party seem to feel very strongly about this issue, so you'd expect them to have some sort of opinion on it/draft policy - not a vague answer.

Or is it the case that they actually agree with the Conservatives/Liberal Democrats but say they don't for your vote come the next election.. Hmm not a hard one really given their past performance on this issue and various other issues.

Considering the next election is 4 years away I think they'll want to see how this works out before announcing any policies

[-:Undertaker:-]

Considering the next election is 4 years away I think they'll want to see how this works out before announcing any policies

So despite all their attacks on this policy 'the poor worst off etc' you think that they are not announcing any policies because 'they want to see how it works'? you really believe that do you? if that was the case, why would they attack the policy now and if the policy is as bad as they are claiming, why are they a) not pledging to repeal this tuition fee rise & b) they refuse to pledge not to increase the fees yet again when they gain office.

Repealing the policy is one thing, but not ruling out more rises is another - especially when they are on the attack at the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for this present rise in tuition fees. As I said before, they don't actually disagree with this policy - hence why they won't say anything on it other than make party political attacks. It is an excellent way to gain votes and is the same tactic that the Conservative Party used during the last election, and judging by the numbers still voting Labour (and Conservative for that matter) its still working.

They are the same but they exaggerate differences between them for electoral advantage, and you along with millions of others fall for it year on year.

[Technologic]

The vote did only pass yesterday, to formulate a policy regarding this matter in such a short time would be quite a feat by any party.

[ifuseekamy]

I have no idea why the obvious solution to cut uni places, end useless courses and close crap institutes never arises.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The vote did only pass yesterday, to formulate a policy regarding this matter in such a short time would be quite a feat by any party.

To vote against it they must have reasons in doing so - so why aren't they coming out and telling us what they would repeal if they win the election, they've had months to do it and afterall it was a Labour peer Lord Browne who recommended changes along these lines to tuition fees.

So again, they actually agree with it but pretend they don't in order to win votes, so by voting Labour you won't have any of this repealed and you could still end up with rates rising yet again after Labour have won the election (as they won't rule out raises in tuition fees themselves).

It begs the question, whats the point in voting for them?


I have no idea why the obvious solution to cut uni places, end useless courses and close crap institutes never arises.

Well believe it or not the fourth largest party in the UK has that as its policy from my memory, and I have no doubt there exist many other parties/independent candidates who would propose something along those lines.. but people are much more interested in PR spin lines dreamt up by the spin doctors of the three main parties rather than to take any notice of what other common sense choices out there exist.

[Technologic]

To vote against it they must have reasons in doing so - so why aren't they coming out and telling us what they would repeal if they win the election, they've had months to do it and afterall it was a Labour peer Lord Browne who recommended changes along these lines to tuition fees.

So again, they actually agree with it but pretend they don't in order to win votes, so by voting Labour you won't have any of this repealed and you could still end up with rates rising yet again after Labour have won the election (as they won't rule out raises in tuition fees themselves).

It begs the question, whats the point in voting for them?

I fail to see your argument behind this... you're blindy attacking all three majority parties without proof

[-:Undertaker:-]

I fail to see your argument behind this... you're blindy attacking all three majority parties without proof

Well here's just a short timeline of their positions on this topic;


The Labour Party pledged in 2001 they would not introduce tuition fees.. then did exactly that after winning the general election.

The Liberal Democrats then attacked Labour over that and made it their policy to abolish tuition fees.

The Liberal Democrats pledged in 2010 not to raise tuition fees.. then did exactly that after winning the general election (based on recommendations from a Labour peer Lord Browne who did a report into the topic of university tuition fees).

The Labour Party are now attacking the Liberal Democrats over raising tuition fees and doing a U-turn despite the fact the Labour Party did the exact same in 2001 by promising something before the election, and then clearly breaking that promise.

The Labour Party now 'oppose' this legislative bill, but when questioned on this topic they refuse not only to repeal this bill if they were to gain office (which they would pledge to do so if they believed this bill was wrong, as no parliament can bind its successor) but they also refuse to rule out further rises in tuition fees.


So given their past records and their continued vague promises (which they break anyway), why would anybody still believe a word they say?

[Catzsy]

To vote against it they must have reasons in doing so - so why aren't they coming out and telling us what they would repeal if they win the election, they've had months to do it and afterall it was a Labour peer Lord Browne who recommended changes along these lines to tuition fees.

So again, they actually agree with it but pretend they don't in order to win votes, so by voting Labour you won't have any of this repealed and you could still end up with rates rising yet again after Labour have won the election (as they won't rule out raises in tuition fees themselves).

It begs the question, whats the point in voting for them?



Well believe it or not the fourth largest party in the UK has that as its policy from my memory, and I have no doubt there exist many other parties/independent candidates who would propose something along those lines.. but people are much more interested in PR spin lines dreamt up by the spin doctors of the three main parties rather than to take any notice of what other common sense choices out there exist.

Seriously it is getting very tiresome - you just post threads to bash labour all the time.

1. They might have commissioned the Browne review but they wouldn't have necessarily gone along with what he recommended.

2. They voted against because their plans before the election was to stagger paying off the deficit over a longer period. As they have no controls over what this government does - how can they plan for 5 years time particularly as he is a new leader with his own vision which he will take time to formulate.

3. They are not just a PR party as they did many things of substance during their time in power. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make it PR.

4. You don't know Ed Milliband so stop pontificating on his charactor etc etc because you are as guilty of spin as you claim he is.

:@:@:@

[-:Undertaker:-]

Seriously it is getting very tiresome - you just post threads to bash labour all the time.

Because people like yourself keep harping on about tuition fees and how they are oh so terrible, but still support the party which has just as bad a record (if not worse) than the other two who also broke their policies.


1. They might have commissioned the Browne review but they wouldn't have necessarily gone along with what he recommended.

Given their massive increases in taxation and so forth over the past decade, what reason would you have for believing they would not increase fees after the election? that's right, you have no reason to believe they wouldn't have introduced these rises in fees - other than blinded faith.


2. They voted against because their plans before the election was to stagger paying off the deficit over a longer period. As they have no controls over what this government does - how can they plan?

Oh what utter rubbish. Absolute nonsense, they voted against the plans to hoover up disaffected Liberal Democrat votes and student votes, and if you don't think otherwise then you are being naive.

As for the debt, the debt is due to continue rising under this government and i've no reason to believe it wouldn't have continued to rise under the Labour government had they had won the general election, especially considering they created the bulk of that debt in the first place. Tuition fees are nothing in terms of the debt, maybe start looking at the £18bn+ a year climate change bill, the £10bn+ a year EU costs and the £10bn+ a year foreign aid packages and you'll start getting somewhere.

But you voted for the three examples i've given above and as did the millions of others who voted Lib/Lab/Con - the money need to come from somewhere, and if you want a big state and a big government (as you've said in the past) then you will find that there are immense bills to pay which the poorest will have to pay as there simply are not enough rich people to foot the bill.


3. They are not just a PR party as they did many things of substance during their time in power. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make it PR.

WMD lies, climate change lies, Lisbon Treaty lies.. spin spin spin and the same goes for the Tory Party. Now see I may not agree with them, but what my point is is the fact that you are voting for a party that is just as bad as the one you are many others are criticising - if you don't like it then don't vote for it.

Why are you attacking two parties who are just as bad as the party you support? (not just on this issue, but on many others aswell)


4. You don't know Ed Milliband so stop pontificating on his charactor etc etc because you are as guilty of spin as you claim he is.

Ed Miliband is a dull marxoid who can't even make a simple pledge on tuition fees who you are still planning to vote for despite the fact he's not even ruled out more tuition fee rises when his lot gain power again. By the half-baked reply you've given me in this thread I can clearly see that to support the Labour Party for you is now a matter of faith. The more you lot keep going on about tuition fees, i'm just going to keep posting the cold hard facts and if at least one of you wakes up then it'll be worth it.

I must ask what spin i'm guilty of and i'd ask that to be pointed out, i'd much rather you tackle the facts I listed in the post above rather than challenge me on what little of a personality Ed Miliband has because his character is irrelevant to this debate, the facts are relevant.

All three parties lied on this issue and have taken us all for mugs - don't let it happen again.


The Labour Party pledged in 2001 they would not introduce tuition fees.. then did exactly that after winning the general election.

The Liberal Democrats then attacked Labour over that and made it their policy to abolish tuition fees.

The Liberal Democrats pledged in 2010 not to raise tuition fees.. then did exactly that after winning the general election (based on recommendations from a Labour peer Lord Browne who did a report into the topic of university tuition fees).

The Labour Party are now attacking the Liberal Democrats over raising tuition fees and doing a U-turn despite the fact the Labour Party did the exact same in 2001 by promising something before the election, and then clearly breaking that promise.

The Labour Party now 'oppose' this legislative bill, but when questioned on this topic they refuse not only to repeal this bill if they were to gain office (which they would pledge to do so if they believed this bill was wrong, as no parliament can bind its successor) but they also refuse to rule out further rises in tuition fees.

[Technologic]

We are in a recession, all parties (the viable ones at least) understand this. The government can't afford to keep funding universities at current rates so fees have to go up so if promises get broken, they get broken. All parties have done it in every government in every country

[-:Undertaker:-]

We are in a recession, all parties (the viable ones at least) understand this. The government can't afford to keep funding universities at current rates so fees have to go up so if promises get broken, they get broken. All parties have done it in every government in every country

I would agree with you to an extent, i've been banging on about the state of national finances year on year.

But as I said above, the debt isn't actually going to go down - it's still due to increase over the lifetime of this parliament, government expenditure is actually due to increase yet again. To add to that, tuition fees are irrelevant to the national debt while we increase the likes of the foreign aid budget by 37%. So all they are doing is using something [the debt] which they aren't actually going to do anything serious about, to milk the taxpayer more.

The tactic of fear is the best tactic politicians use, people need to be aware of what politicians say and what politicians actually do.

[beth]

i voted for this particular clown in the leadership battle, and i stand by him. i think he's on the right path for labour.

[Technologic]

I would agree with you to an extent, i've been banging on about the state of national finances year on year.

But as I said above, the debt isn't actually going to go down - it's still due to increase over the lifetime of this parliament, government expenditure is actually due to increase yet again. To add to that, tuition fees are irrelevant to the national debt while we increase the likes of the foreign aid budget by 37%. So all they are doing is using something [the debt] which they aren't actually going to do anything serious about, to milk the taxpayer more.

The tactic of fear is the best tactic politicians use, people need to be aware of what politicians say and what politicians actually do.
I'm sure you would know all about the tactic of fear as it seems to be UKIPs main political tool, no?

[Catzsy]

Because people like yourself keep harping on about tuition fees and how they are oh so terrible, but still support the party which has just as bad a record (if not worse) than the other two who also broke their policies.


I pay tuition fees but tripling them is totally out of order. Some contribution is fine.




Given their massive increases in taxation and so forth over the past decade, what reason would you have for believing they would not increase fees after the election? that's right, you have no reason to believe they wouldn't have introduced these rises in fees - other than blinded faith.

Because they had no plans to cut University fund by 80% which is the reason for tuition fees.




Oh what utter rubbish. Absolute nonsense, they voted against the plans to hoover up disaffected Liberal Democrat votes and student votes, and if you don't think otherwise then you are being naive.

What evidence have you for this? Absolutely none. Why would they want
disaffected lib dem votes? If you actually listen to Ed Milliband he said it was a BAD DECISION taken by the coalition.


As for the debt, the debt is due to continue rising under this government and i've no reason to believe it wouldn't have continued to rise under the Labour government had they had won the general election, especially considering they created the bulk of that debt in the first place. Tuition fees are nothing in terms of the debt, maybe start looking at the £18bn+ a year climate change bill, the £10bn+ a year EU costs and the £10bn+ a year foreign aid packages and you'll start getting somewhere.

Your opinion not based on any substance or fact or supported by any person of note. It is universally accepted by all that the banking crisis caused the debt. Yes they are a more state based party and do spend more because that is their priority. What about the 70 billion owed in tax evasion. Any opinion on why that is not going to be persued with vigour?


But you voted for the three examples i've given above and as did the millions of others who voted Lib/Lab/Con - the money need to come from somewhere, and if you want a big state and a big government (as you've said in the past) then you will find that there are immense bills to pay which the poorest will have to pay as there simply are not enough rich people to foot the bill.


WMD lies, climate change lies, Lisbon Treaty lies.. spin spin spin and the same goes for the Tory Party. Now see I may not agree with them, but what my point is is the fact that you are voting for a party that is just as bad as the one you are many others are criticising - if you don't like it then don't vote for it.

Totally disagree - you have a very closed mind when it comes to differences.
You are blind to what they have achieved positively. I would have a lot more respect for you if you could see things in a bit more perspective.




Ed Miliband is a dull marxoid who can't even make a simple pledge on tuition fees who you are still planning to vote for despite the fact he's not even ruled out more tuition fee rises when his lot gain power again. By the half-baked reply you've given me in this thread I can clearly see that to support the Labour Party for you is now a matter of faith.

Oh you not only know Ed Miliband personally enough to assasinate his charactor you also are a mind reader - nowhere has he said he will raise tuition fees. I don't know what sort of a leader he will be yet. I didn't like Browne but I will keep my options open about who I vote for next time.
Tell me what is so good about raising tuition fees to 9k perhaps you could give your views for a change rather than bombasting other people about theirs and being quite personal about their charactors as well.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I pay tuition fees but tripling them is totally out of order. Some contribution is fine.

I agree.


Because they had no plans to cut University fund by 80% which is the reason for tuition fees.

So what would you cut then? was Labour going to cut EU/foreign aid and so forth? no it wasn't.


What evidence have you for this? Absolutely none. Why would they want
disaffected lib dem votes? If you actually listen to Ed Milliband he said it was a BAD DECISION taken by the coalition.

The evidence I have is that Labour are now being two-faced by criticising the Liberal Democrats for breaking an election pledge, we then also have mini-Labour (the NUS) saying things like "the Liberal Democrats will never have the student vote again". So again I would ask, what reason do you have to believe them?

Of course Miliband will say its a bad decision, because he wants students votes - duh!


Your opinion not based on any substance or fact or supported by any person of note. It is universally accepted by all that the banking crisis caused the debt. Yes they are a more state based party and do spend more because that is their priority. What about the 70 billion owed in tax evasion. Any opinion on why that is not going to be persued with vigour?

Look at the green graph because that is absolute rubbish, the bulk of debt was run up by a big state which is spending what it does not have. As for tax evasion, I would ask why Labour also did not persue this tax - which yet again proves my point that they are all the same.


Totally disagree - you have a very closed mind when it comes to differences.
You are blind to what they have achieved positively. I would have a lot more respect for you if you could see things in a bit more perspective.

What do you disagree on exactly? what major policy do the two parties disagree on? find me one and we'll have a chat about it, with anyluck you can prove me wrong on it and i'll gladly concede that you've then found one big difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.


Oh you not only know Ed Miliband personally enough to assasinate his charactor you also are a mind reader - nowhere has he said he will raise tuition fees. I don't know what sort of a leader he will be yet. I didn't like Browne but I will keep my options open about who I vote for next time.

But he also won't rule out raising tuition fees, which means he's obviously considering it and wouldn't have much of a problem with raising them hence why he won't rule them out. But why won't he say he will raise them I hear you ask? - because like the Liberal Democrats, they want your vote hence why they will not say unpopular things.

Just as the Tories pose before the election 'not to give anymore powers to the EU' and then do exactly that.


Tell me what is so good about raising tuition fees to 9k perhaps you could give your views for a change rather than bombasting other people about theirs and being quite personal about their charactors as well.

I haven't said there is anything good about raising tuition fees and i'm against raising them aswell, i'm merely pointing out that if you are genuinely against them - why would you vote for a party which has just as bad a record as the Liberal Democrats on this issue?

If you vote Lib/Lab/Con then you are essentially voting for this, don't you understand that?

[Inseriousity.]

I don't have a problem with the rise, I'm more concerned about the lack of a cap. I think capped fees - all universities charging the same - at least made every uni the same financially. Even if that cap was to raise to 6000, I could understand that as we're in debt blah blah blah.

Personally, I was not fond of any of the Labour leader contenders. Blair moved a left-wing party closer to the centre expanding on Thatcher's policies of competition etc and Cameron (or possibly someone before him), in an attempt to reestablish the party, moved a right-wing party closer to the centre. They're all the same so I wouldn't be surprised if 'Red Ed' would have raised fees imo.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't have a problem with the rise, I'm more concerned about the lack of a cap. I think capped fees - all universities charging the same - at least made every uni the same financially. Even if that cap was to raise to 6000, I could understand that as we're in debt blah blah blah.

Personally, I was not fond of any of the Labour leader contenders. Blair moved a left-wing party closer to the centre expanding on Thatcher's policies of competition etc and Cameron (or possibly someone before him), in an attempt to reestablish the party, moved a right-wing party closer to the centre. They're all the same so I wouldn't be surprised if 'Red Ed' would have raised fees imo.

I would argue what Peter Hitchens argues (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb9FqYXscsI), that for the vast part of the 20th century the Conservative Party has failed in all aspects to oppose Fabian socialism, the Labour Party remains highly idealogically charged while the Conservative Party has all but given in and in some cases actually follows the method of Fabianism which has arisen since the Cold War; socialism by stealth. The only difference now is that the left supports indirect state ownership rather than direct state ownership which the collapse of the Soviet Union ended.

The decade of Blair was so radical that you could probably class it as more radical than the Thatcher government (which was a right wing government, although only in some areas), the Labour Party remains to the left (although does not state this) and the Tory Party is centre right, which is identical to the centre left. If you're interested in the 'merge' though, i'd recommend reading the Cameron Delusion by Peter Hitchens - explains it really well.

What we need is a return of the adversarial political system, where on one hand you would have a real Conservative Party that would stand up and say "Yes we are for British sovereignty, yes we are for prisons and tough sentences, yes we are for the return of the grammar schools and yes we are for lower taxes" which would be matched on the left by left politicians standing up and saying "Yes we are for a European Superstate, yes we are for treating crime as a disease, yes we are in support of the comprehensive system and so on" - but we don't have that, its been lost.

As Hitchens says about conventional wisdom that usually states 'New Labour is right wing'; if you examine it you'll find it is an absurd proposition.

[Conservative,]

They attack it, then say they won't change it (or at least won't commit to it)...I don't mind if they had said "We'll give it a chance" but no they attacked the proposal from the start and now won't condemn it...how stupid.

Again, if they had said "we'll give the proposal a chance, but we don't like the sound of it" I would've said fair enough they never said that they're against it, but they have attacked it and opposed from the start and that's what is wrong. They attack it then refuse to commit to refusing it. That is the height of (I can't remember the right word) hypocrisy? Labour disgust me sometimes -.-