When Mr Nick Clegg offered a rational response to the Browne review, having considered the review set up by Labour and carried out by Lord Browne; and acted on the weight of pros for Lord Browne's proposals over others and the current system, the Deputy PM unleashed a storm that has yet to abate for the Liberal Democrats (BBC, 2011).
The main and most controversial recommendation of Lord Browne's review was the raising of the tuition fee cap. In response to choosing to comply with the review's advice, Mr Clegg stressed that:
'The pledge [not to vote for a rise in tuition fees] was made quite clearly on the assumption that we would deliver that promise if we were in government on our own... In life, just as in politics, you say you want to do things and then circumstances prevent you... decisions we have taken collectively in the coalition government... have a knock on effect on the amount of money that is available'Lord Ashdown explained that this decision by Mr Clegg and the Liberal Democrat coalition ministers, to vote contrary to a previous commitment not to raise fees and to phase them out over six years; was taken because:
-Mr Nick Clegg, Radio 5 Live, 8 December 2010
'One, you start repaying back £6000 higher than at present, two you're going to be paying back less and three the richer... will be paying back more than the poorer... [the proposals are] far better than you've got at present'It is clear that while in the short term it means raising the fee threshold against a promise, Liberal Democrats believed the Browne review to constitute a step towards a more progressive policy. The plan appears not to raise the real terms cost of tuition for students, nor to raise the actual amounts contributed by the lowest earners (IFS, 2010). Lib Dems seem to have hoped this would act as a step towards a more progressive system of higher education funding - but it's also as a sneaky economist's trick.
-Lord Ashdown, 5 Live Breakfast, 8 December 2010
You see, by shifting from the public to students the bill the government runs up paying for higher education, the government can claim a portion of the deficit to have been reduced, apparently as much as £6000 per degree. By setting fees higher, the government increases spending on higher education while still making good on deficit reduction. This is because total student debt now becomes the total funding for universities, with the various measures in place, such as thresholds and low repayments, serving to prevent the total debt weighing too heavily upon the shoulders of individual students.
Honest Communication
Now, while all of this amounts to a deficit reduction for the treasury and a system of tuition fees slightly more progressive than the previous one for students, too little of this was made clear and too little made it into public discourse. And at no point was it made abundantly clear that this system of funding would be a possibility. Dr Evan Harris, a former Lib Dem MP, stresses that Liberal Democrat ministers made mistakes. Dr Harris lists poor communication, failure to clearly demonstrate their priorities and the failure to be clear as to the circumstances under which pledges can be kept amongst the party's mistakes (Harris, 2011).
In all, the sum of their failure was ineffective communication with their own supporters and voters.
This failure of communication has been answered with anger, with many voters feeling that wool was pulled over their eyes by the Liberal Democrats and that the strength of their commitments is unclear. This anger seems to at least partly have a basis in the existence in the past of Lib-Lab pacts and close association between these parties as representatives of voters on the left. Such a standing perception of the party would obviously make a coalition with Tories and the breaking of a pledge a heavier blow.
The weight of this dissatisfaction has overawed the policy successes of the Liberal Democrats and has allowed other parties to get away with their own hypocrisies. From Tory & Labour members jeering the name 'Michael Brown' at Mr Clegg at Deputy PM's questions, inspite of being the parties of Lord Ashcroft and vested union interests (YouTube, 2011); to dramatic shifts and changes of policy, with Conservatives adopting Labour Manifesto social housing promises (Labour, 2010) only for Labour to criticise them as 'social cleansing' (BBC, 2010); accountability is threatened when parliament cannot scrutinise hypocrisy because faith has been lost in those that people rely on to represent us.
Journalists & Politicians
For the majority of people to scrutinise political goings-on, on a regular basis, some measure & balance of journalistic & political integrity is required to enable them. This, as recent news is showing, has been a very difficult balancing act.
With both the Conservative & Labour Parties being very close to Murdoch and enjoying the support of his news titles and Mr Clegg's Liberal Democrats forced to defend against attacks from the right-wing press during the 2010 UK general election (Tall, 2010), as the only party free from Murdoch connections and capable of locking Murdoch out of British government politics (Yelland, 2010); it becomes difficult to get clear facts with which to make informed decisions.
At the heart of the matter is that a voter is essentially trusting. Our parliamentary democracy is founded on the basis of elected representatives being sent to parliament to advocate the views of a portion of the people. People for the most part maintain busy, working lives; mostly as a result of political decisions. These people depend upon elected representatives to put their case for them, informed and open. People HAVE to trust in them.
It is not much to demand of politicians that the trust of people not be abused when they are often too busy to put legislation under scrutiny personally. This is why the unanimous motion against the BSkyB takeover is so refreshing along with the sum products of the statement & debate of Wednesday 13 July, which announced an inquiry leading to major reform of both journalistic practices and government transparency.
Reforming the media and government towards greater transparency will be immensely welcome and a chance for parliament to make a huge stride towards improving how the public perceives it. And therein a chance to tackle the causes of that social symptom most dangerous to democracy: disinterest.
==========
References:
==========
+ The Browne Review or 'Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education - An independent review of Higher education funding & student finance'; 12 October 2010;
+ BBC's 'Vote 2011: Lib Dems "biggest election setback since 1980s'; 6 May 2011;
+ Radio 5 Live; Nick Clegg speaking to Victoria Derbyshire; 8 December 2010;
+ 5 Live Breakfast; Paddy Ashdown to Georgia Emblen; 8 December 2010;
+ IFS Press Release 'Graduates and universities share burden of Browne recommendations'; 12 October 2010;
+ Dr Evan Harris' 'The myth of Lib Dem 'betrayal''; May 2011;
+ BBC's 'DPMQs, 'Question 5: What progress has been made on the reform of party funding?'; on YouTube; 5 July 2011;
+ Labour's 'Living Standards - Prosperity for all not just a few'; Chp 2, Pg 3; in 'Labour Party Manifesto 2010 - A future fair for all';
+ BBC's The Record covering Labour accusing the Coalition of "Sociological" Cleansing; on YouTube; 27 October 2010; from DPMQs, '...How does he propose to make electoral provision for those displaced people?'; 26 October 2010;
+ Stephen Tall's 'Too busy to read all the "Get Clegg" smears in the right-wing press? Here they all are in one handy digest'; 22 April 2010
+ David Yelland's 'Nick Clegg's rise could lock Murdoch and the media elite out of UK politics'; 18 April 2010;
No comments:
Post a Comment