Tuition Fees: Power and Promises


4. The Tuition Fees U-Turn

We need to consider the LibDem policy reversal in a little more detail. 

There is little doubt that Nick Clegg and his advisors did not expect to have to actually implement their ‘no fees’ policy. It’s safe to assume the LibDems weren’t exactly ‘preparing for government’ as they went into the election.

Entering the Coalition with the Conservatives changed all that. As we have heard many times since, this heralded the need for compromise.

Sadly, the pre-election tuition fees policy was a casualty of that compromise, which itself was (as we are also repeatedly told) for the greater good of the country.

The clarity of this message has been diminished a little by claims from some senior LibDems (Business Secretary Vince Cable most notably) that the pre-election policy was simply ‘wrong’ and that it would be irresponsible to stay faithful to it, given the public spending deficit now faced by the Coalition.

No matter which version is the more accurate: the real ‘game-changer’ in all this was the LibDem decision to be part of the Coalition.

Put crudely, the availability of a power-share with the Conservatives made the tuition fees policy (and some others) a liability. Clegg and his team were essentially challenged to consider whether it was in their interests to gain seats at the cabinet table at the expense of breaking some of their election pledges.

They duly bartered their policy pledges for a share of power. In doing so, they no doubt considered how the main stakeholders in their key policies would react to those policies being watered down, or even abandoned.

Obviously, they felt any adverse reaction was a price worth paying. LibDem voters had a ‘right to expect performance’, but this was weighed in the balance against high office and access to power: the scales clearly didn’t tip in favour of the election obligation to voters and students.

3 thoughts on “Tuition Fees: Power and Promises

  1. On matters in general I am an idealist. But on tuition fees I am one of Spincop’s pragmatists. The political ‘system’ (of which we are all a part in one way or another) expects political parties to make election commitments, to simplify and avoid nuance, and not to hedge their bets with ‘ifs and buts’. Parties know that they need to win power if they are to achieve anything. So, they make promises to garner our votes. But the public should take election manifestos with a pinch of salt. If the LibDems had been elected to govern, perhaps the critics would have a point, but the Conservatives won the election. The Government is a coalition, with LibDems a minority. All parties to a coalition cannot have their way. Compromise when it comes to Commons voting means that one party or another is going to be open to the charge of breaking a pledge or principle, not sticking to its guns, etc. Politicians would be wise to resist making pre-election promises. The public and media need to grow up. Instead of singling out the big fish to blame, see and understand that the fishtank (aka the system of attaining and exercising political power) is “fearful, stressful, murky, confusing and insecure”. Cleaning up electioneering (as Phil Woolas found to his cost) is necessary, but political fish will never shine as brightly as we’d like them too, because the water is always going to be somewhat dirty. Not just here but in the Middle East too. It’s easy to see and blame the sharks in Sharm el-Sheikh’s blue waters, but it’s people who dump food waste in those waters and feed fish to get nearer to them and take better pictures. A few days ago I passed a road sign saying ‘Don’t complain about the traffic: you are the traffic’. Well, we are all a part of a politician’s environment: they sometimes feed us promises because they know that is what we want to hear them say, and then we reward them. So stop feeding them in return. Vote for the ‘no promises’ party! Most of them are really trying to do their best in the circumstances. That all we should hold them accountable for.

    1. Bill – this is a good, robust response to the post, much of which I’m in agreement with. I am critical of Clegg, but I accept your point that he’s been swimming in filthy water for some time! I would just like to see a leader (of any political persuasion) make a start, no matter how small, on cleaning it up.

      My particular concern here is that people in high profile leadership roles (in public life and in business) are undermining the credibility of leadership when they act in this way. A classic example is calling for restraint, belt-tightening and sacrifice. This only has any real power if your own record on these matters stands up to scrutiny.

      When it doesn’t, you just water the seeds of cycnicism. How many more percentage points can the ‘I never trust a politican’ score increase by before the whole system is in terminal disrepute? There are some pretty unsavoury political movements swimming in the waters already; people in power should be careful not to provide them with a food supply. Thanks again for your excellent feedback.

  2. I’d have some sympathy with the cry of ‘we didn’t know how bad it was until we were in power, and so that is why we are going back on our promise’ if they didn’t all read the same briefings, walk down the same corridors, and drink in the same bars. In business, if you are externally recruited this cry washes, if you are promoted or transferred from another unit it does not. I suggest that Clegg has been promoted or perhaps transferred from another unit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s