Liverpool Liberal Democrats try to reconcile tuition fees fiasco
As Liverpool saw a second wave of student protests today Liverpool Liberal Democrats were interviewed on the Daily Politics show about tuition fees.
They try valiantly to reconcile the fact that the party is opposed to tuition fees with the fact they in a coalition that is about to ramp them up.
Cllr Tom Morrison says opposition to tuition fees is one of the reasons he is a Lib-Dem and sums it up like this: "I am glad that the party itself is keeping that pledge that we want to scrap tuition fees however I am no so impressed that we will be compromising and going with the Brown review cos I think that is somewhere we should not be going."
Alex Roydon says the membership has been betrayed by the leadership of the party.
Cllr Paula Keaveney concludes with: "I think the public will understand we are sticking to our principles if our MPs vote against the rise in tuition fees."
For as long as I can remember scrapping tuition fees was a cornerstone issue for the Liberal Democrats. It has won them thousands upon thousand of student votes.
It strikes me that when the coalition agreement was being drawn up in those heady May days that the leadership thought that it would be enough to secure the right for Lib-Dems to abstain. Now it is becoming clearer and clearer that the party is in a real pickle and without an obvious exit strategy.
Most voters will understand that no party won the election, and therefore compromises had to be made.
But, there are some beliefs, some principles so fundamental to the identity of a group that to compromise on it may threaten its very existence. Is this such an issue for the Lib-Dems?
18 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
You can't fool me, young Bartlett, this is one of those trick videos linking you to Nick Ghastly. Like all the thousands of students who voted for the Lib Dems, You've been Nick Rolled !!
By the way, is that the new haircut? I knew the cuts would be severe but blimey!
Keaveney an her usual Billy Bunter-esque "ooh isn't this a frightful pickle" approach to try and disguise the Lib Dem's lack of integrity and coherent policy.
Be soooon I said to him, be sooooon. Time's running out, you'll have us all exfoliated at the ballot box. Are you going to vote for it Mr Cable, stood standin' there on the fence.... have you beeeeeen? Has he been? He looks as though he's been.
Alex Royden is absolutely right when she says uses the word betrayal. This goes deeper than raising the cap on fees. There is an umbilical link between the coalitionâÂÂs response to Browne and the university teaching cuts and abolition of EMA in the CSR. The UK is the only OECD country reducing higher education spending, other than Romania.
I opposed the Higher Education Act in 2004, but this is far, far worse. The governmentâÂÂs proposals will commoditise higher education, weaken access regulation and wonâÂÂt bring an extra penny into higher education.
Residents across Liverpool are looking to the Lib Dems locally to take a stand, but, on this issue, they have been found wanting. On 10 November the governmentâÂÂs response to Browne was debated at the City Council and all councillors had the chance to place on record their views on higher education funding by voting for an amendment I moved calling for no increase in fees.
The Lib Dems were all over the place. Four supported the motion (Rosie Jolly, Gary Millar, Paul Twigger and Lynnie Williams). Four voted against (Karen Afford, Elaine Allen, Pat Maloney and Tom Morrison â it looks like itâÂÂs not just his haircut TomâÂÂs changed in the intervening three weeks!). The rest of the Lib Dems abstained.
come on Tom! Answer Cllr Small!
have you changed more than your haircut!
Spot on Cllr Small!!!!!
What Cllr Small fails to mention is that at that very Council meeting, his amendment asked for Lib Dem MPs to lose seats AND asked for no increase in fees.. Not the full scrapping of fees the original motion asked for.
It's an utter shame Cllr Small feels it necessary to play Politics with this matter.
I voted against his awful amendment as firstly I do not want to see Lib Dem MPs voted out of office. Like it or not (and I'm sure you'll voice your displeasure) I'm a Lib Dem. I want to see a majority of Lib Dems in Parliament. Voting for Lib Dem MPs to lose their seat would be like sitting at Anfield and cheering on the opposing team. Cllr Small may feel differently about his party, but that would speak more about his character than anything else. The day I want Lib Dems to lose is the day I leave the party. If Cllr Small doesn't agree I would suggest he fore-sake his Cabinet Member's SRA and take a seat as an independent.
Secondly, Cllr Small's little amendment would have changed the original motion from having tuition fees scrapped, to just not wanting them raised. Too late Nick, Labour's monster has already bolted and fees will keep rising and rising. The only way to stop this is by scrapping them all together. Let's not forget it was YOUR party that introduced them and then raised them, Labour broke TWO election pledges regarding fees.. Where was your little amendment then?
Cllr Small, believe it or not, I've got a great deal of respect for you as a politician. I never agree with you, but I take in most of what you say and I generally find your thoughts and ideas both challenging and well thought out. However you have really shown yourself up with this trick and let yourself and your integrity down.
Perhaps if we concentrated on debating issues with best interest of Liverpool at heart, instead of political point scoring, then we'd find more interest in local politics would be forth coming.
Tom
Nice try, Tom, but youâÂÂre missing the point.
I amended the original motion for two reasons. First, it only dealt with the Browne Review proposals. After the motion had been submitted but before the Council meeting, the government published its response to Browne. So the motion needed to be amended to take account of this.
Secondly, the original motion only referred to âÂÂopposition in principle to the levying of tuition feesâÂÂ. I donâÂÂt know about you, but I donâÂÂt think anybody voted for me to oppose things in principle, while doing something else in practice. The NUS pledge, signed by Nick Clegg et al, wasnâÂÂt a pledge to oppose fees in principle; it was a pledge to vote against any increase in fees. ThatâÂÂs why the amendment was phrased in terms of opposing an increase in fees, abandoning the undergraduate teaching cuts in the CSR and to work towards a fair funding package for students. The government will only get Browne and the CSR cuts through parliament, if Lib Dem MPs break the NUS pledge most of them signed by voting against or abstaining on 9 December. If all Lib Dem MPs voted against this, it wonâÂÂt happen â simple as.
The amendment actually made no mention of voting against Lib Dem MPs (check the minutes http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=70047). It was your colleague Paul Twigger who said âÂÂNo Lib Dem should vote for any MP who votes to increase feesâÂÂ.
As for the 2004 Act; I opposed it at the time and would have publicly voted to oppose it in the Council Chamber had I been a councillor at the time. ThereâÂÂs few more tribal about politics than me and I know how difficult it can be opposing what your party does in government, but there are times when youâÂÂve got to stand up and be counted. And this is one of those times for Lib Dems.
So what you're saying is this Nick...
I should have supported your amendment because, although I want tuition fees scrapped, I should be prepared to go for second best?
Because that is what is being suggested. I will never support a motion/amendment that supports tuition fees even if they are capped.
No one doubts your energy and commitment in fighting tuition fees Nick, but unlike you (it appears) I want them scrapped.
Therefore I wont be supporting anything that does not promote the scrapping of fees. The original Council motion did this, your amendment watered it down. Simple.
Tom
P.S. After your sly little dig about my hair cut previously.. all I can say is glass houses my friend, glasses houses. ;)
If anything proves the uselessness of our local politicians it is this exchange here. Arguing over a minor point about a motion or amendment that will make no difference whatsoever. Repeat - no difference whatsoever! Please Cllr Morrison and Cllr Small - tell me what this achieved? How long did you spend on this?
Local politicians trying to make themselves sound important by arguing about the stuff the proper politicians are responsible for. It is pathetic.
So the end result is that the Lib Dems oppose the Labour Council and Labour oppose the Lib Dem Government. I am so glad my Council tax has been spent on these tinpot windbags making this clear.
And as for what I see elsewhere - standing on balconies addressing bemused crowds as if you are Shankly, the Beatles or even Hatton - that is some ego.
well said bored - posturing from both of them - quite why either of them thinks a local authority motion/amendment whatever it is matters in an item being voted on in Parliament is beyond me.
One suggestion for young Councillor Morrison -made in good faith dont let your very laudable loyalty to your party develop into tribalism
Using watching football as an analogy is a bit risky - yes i like to see my team win but its not everything and - there are lots of decent politicians in all the main partes
I'm sorry, but I find it really quite outrageous this young councillor would say one thing in public and do another in the council chamber. I'm a resident of Fairfield, so i'm not in a place where I can do anything about it, but I would not vote for Cllr Morrison, he's proved himself already to be totally untrustworthy - look at where that video has paused, its as if he would gush forth with any comment to please the audience before him.
I am ashamed I voted Lib Dem at the election. Get these Con Dems out!
'Bored' is too harsh on Cllrs Small & Morrison. I think it's good they argue it out on a blog like this, in their own names too. It would be easy enough for them not to bother, retreating into their 'private' Council chamber squabbles. Good for democracy that they don't. Let's not attack politicians for the sake of it. But by all means criticise their policy statements, or their duplicity - as Jane Salent does. And for good measure, both Nick Small & Tom Morrison are completely wrong about tuition fees. So was Paul Clein (writing in the Guardian the other day). So, for that matter, are the leaders of all three main parties in their different ways
I think bored was spot on.
For these two the highhlight of their month is the full council meeting.
No one in the city either knows about it - or cares.
These two quibble over arcane details.
No wonder politics fails to engage when you have got these two as leading examples.
Its utterly pathetic and deeply depressing.
Small-minded politicians, making small-debating points.
bored2 has a fine point.
Perhaps instead of believing their own puffed upness these two cllrs might concentrate on issues to improve the lives of their respective constituents on a day to day basis.
Petty squabbles left over from the student union are tiresome.
Im always amazed at the attention all Cllrs in this city attach to "full council"
It is a complete and UTTER irrelvance to 99.9999% of this city yet its given some sort of reverential status by these puffed up nobodies.
Has anybody (as I do for professional reason) ever waded through the agenda and minutes of this turgid ego trip.Believe me it would be the last time you ever read it.
Id abolish all "allowences" for Cllrs and lets see how many "community champions" we are left with then.
I would suggest it would be nowhere near 90.
Lets be clear. Being a cllr is not and never has been a "job" Pity this line has been so blurred in recent years.
With such political cunning and clear lateral thinking for consequences, I am amazed Cllr Morrison as election agent lost the Wavertree seat by 8,000.
Definately one to watch out for.
I'm not sure where you leave us, James Lancaster. You don't like the Council; you don't like Councillors. Presumably you don't think much of local democracy. Not sure why you show any interest in this blog then. "Puffed up nobodies" have always populated Council chambers long before allowances were introduced. These are the "puffed up nobodies" we elect. If you have a better scheme for local representation, let's hear it - an appointed Council? a Council of the wealthy? a Council of property owners? All have been tried - but none since the end of the 19th century. Scatter-gun scorn of councillors leads nowhere good. Specific criticism of their policies and actions is fine. That's democratic accountability
I couldn't agree more with 'Ronnie de Ramper', and an excellent example of the type of character of whom he writes can be found in his ward colleague - and I don't mean the one who stood against Luciana.