Tuition Fees: Three shades of student opinion…

In spite of the unrest seen over the past few days, Thursday saw the bill to raise tuition fees pass through the House of Commons, the rebellion of some MPs proving insufficient to block the legislation.

In the wake of the bill's passage, The Cambridge Student asked the Chairs of Cambridge's three main party political societies to comment on the situation.

Ashley Walsh - Chair, Cambridge University Labour Club

The Cambridge Universities Labour Club completely opposes this disastrous policy. Tied with the Coalition government's plan to cut £200 million from the higher education budget, the rise in tuition fees to £6,000 or even £9,000 will completely devastate equal access and form a major block to the poorest in our society from achieving the very best.

Even with the meagre concessions granted to Liberal Democrat MPs to secure their support, poorer students will be frightened from the prospect of university with debts of up to £40,000 once they had graduated. Although the Coalition claims that the policy is progressive, all students will graduate with debts far higher than they have ever before had. Not only does this harm equality in our society, but it unjustly burdens graduates with debts that will hinder them from building their careers.

But even the meagre concessions offered by the Coalition fail the fairness test. Indeed the IFS has shown that the policy 'provides a financial incentive' for universities 'to turn away students from poorer backgrounds'.

While we expected nothing more from the Conservatives, students nationwide are disappointed by the complete betrayal inflicted on them by Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrat leadership. It is nothing short of utter hypocrisy for them to turn back on a pledge upon which many students voted Liberal Democrat.

But even those MPs who voted against, or abstained from, the bill continue to prop up the Coalition government that is implementing it. But the story doesn't end there. MPs like Julian Huppert must explain why they are supporting both devastating cuts to our economy in general, as well as massive cuts worth £200 million to our universities. These MPs simply cannot pick and choose when they want to be martyrs.

Labour is now proposing a positive and credible alternative to this completely unjustified approach. Ed Miliband and Labour's new, fresh leadership have been right to accept that the party inevitably made mistakes while in government. Labour is right to draw up plans for a truly fair and progressive graduate tax in order to ensure that sufficient finance can be invested into our universities, while guaranteeing equality for all.

A graduate tax would ensure that the richest pay the most and the poorest pay the least. Equally, nobody would pay for their costs while studying or in the immediate period following graduation. It would also ensure that we could fund higher education far better than the Coalition will, so that we invest properly in our students and maintain a globally competitive economy.

This policy simply goes to show that the Tories look after the rich to the detriment of everyone else, while the Liberal Democrat leadership have sold out their supporters in the selfish pursuit of power. Only the Labour Party has the vision for equality and social justice for all in our society, for we are the fair alternative. We are the only fair alternative.

Hannah Keal - Chair, Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats

As a Liberal Democrat, of course I'm disappointed. I refuse, however, to see this as a so dramatic a betrayal as many are painting it as, especially from Labour who, I believe, are guilty of breathtaking hypocrisy and political point- scoring. No change there then.

An American style system is regressive: after all, why follow the most socially divided country on the planet? But amongst the litany of woes, there are some glimpses of light. For the first time, part time students will be treated as equals, and contribution will be based on who can afford it. The poorer will pay less, the richer will pay more. There will be a £150 million scholarship fund. It is, of course, a little more complex than that, but in essence, the Liberal Democrats have won some incredibly valuable concessions from our coalition counterparts.

I'm not pretending this is perfect. Far from it. Sadly, the Liberal Democrats didn't win the election; therefore, we have had to make compromises.

But I do think that the very public wrestle with his conscience that Nick has undergone makes it obvious how difficult this decision was for him to make. I genuinely believe that our leadership has fought for the best deal for students under the circumstances, both economic and political. I understand that people are angry, and this decision may cost us as a party dear. But once the furore has calmed down, I hope that people will see that this government, unlike the Labour one who originally made the decision to introduce fees, have not treated students as easy targets but have instead tried to make sure our future isn't mortgaged away.

Having said this, I am proud of our local Cambridge MP, Dr Julian Huppert, for voting against the proposals. As a matter of principle, and in accordance with the pledge he made to students, I believe he has made the right decision. The concessions we have won, as I said above, are valuable. Like so many other decisions the coalition has made, this is an issue where my head and heart are divided. My head says that the leadership have made the best of a bad situation. My heart wishes for better.

Callum Wood - Chairman, Cambridge University Conservative Association

Nobody wants to pay more for higher education. Of course, this statement applies just as validly to the taxpayer as it does to the student. It is hardly necessary to justify the importance of reducing the national debt, the mere interest for which currently exceeds the government's bills for defence and transport combined. Needless to say, the public purse is more than overstretched and savings are essential, however inconvenient they might be in the short term.

Opponents of the proposed rises in tuition fees talk about fairness, but I imagine that they'd struggle to explain to the men and women who work incredibly hard to support their families exactly how the government confiscating an extra chunk of their pay packet could be regarded as fair. Noting that graduates, on average, earn £100,000 more than non-graduates over the course of their working lives, it seems particularly unfair to place the burden of paying for degree courses on the taxpayer as a whole (who, in any case, will continue to pay for 40% of the cost of higher education).

There is no reason why the beneficiaries of university degrees shouldn't have to make some contribution, especially now that almost a half of school leavers wish to go on to further study.

The NUS and Labour claim that a graduate tax would be fairer, but this doesn't quite ring true when poorer graduates would be expected to pay more and richer graduates would be asked to pay less in comparison with the proposed system. Likewise, talk of those from disadvantaged backgrounds being priced out of university is simply untrue - as well giving more financial assistance to poorer students, the threshold for repayments will rise to £21k, to be recalculated yearly in line with inflation. The absence of up-front fees means that nobody should be put off applying to University because of their domestic circumstance. This is illustrated by the fact that the introduction of the current system failed to impede the improvement of access that went on during the period; indeed,UCAS has had year-on-year increases in applications since 2006.

As a result of changes to higher education funding, universities will be put on a much more solid financial footing for the long term, as well as being given incentives to improve the quality of teaching. Indeed, one might argue that increases in fees will price out poor quality and improve the overall standard of university education because few would be willing to fork out large sums of money for a useless degree from a third-rate institution. Universities wishing to charge more than £6000 p.a. in fees are going to be compelled to improve access from a wider range of backgrounds.

In the case of Cambridge University, there is an average deficit of around £9000 per undergraduate.

This is simply unsustainable. Other universities are in the same boat. The only way to make up this deficit without placing an extra, unreasonable and punitive burden upon ordinary families is to shift some of the cost of higher education from the to the students benefitting from that education.