Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Spring Fund Drive: Keep CounterPunch Afloat
CounterPunch is a lifeboat of sanity in today’s turbulent political seas. Please make a tax-deductible donation and help us continue to fight Trump and his enablers on both sides of the aisle. Every dollar counts!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Tuition Fees and the Labour Right: Who to Trust in British Student Politics?

With the constant erosion of the NHS; the removal of essential services such as Legal Aid; the closure of Rape Crisis Centres and libraries; benefit cuts for the disabled, workfare for the unemployed; the jingoistic tone of the vote to bomb Syria; and now the scrapping of maintenance grants for disadvantaged students, I want to say that this government has gone too far, but to do so would be to ignore the incredible damage that has already been done.

We are, in fact, looking at “gone too far” in the rear view mirror. “Gone too far” is a shitty service station we passed sometime in the 1990s. Every time the government and the local councils chip away at public services, it is a cut on top of a mountain of other cuts and, thus, an endorsement of every one that has preceded it. People talk about being kicked when they are down, but this is more like disfiguring the terminally ill… a practice that chimes well with the Tories’ humiliating and immoral disability testing.

It should come as a breath of fresh air, therefore, to hear Labour Party come out against the scrapping of maintenance grants. Indeed, British politics has certainly become a more hopeful place since the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the Labour Party leadership.

But before we get too excited, it is important to consider Labour’s (let’s face it) appalling recent track record on student issues when in power.

The PLP and the Labour councils are teeming with Blairites, unprincipled careerists, and confidence tricksters, who would say anything to get elected but would sell us down the river at the first opportunity. For this reason, we should be wary of providing uncritical support for Corbyn, irrespective of his own excellent credentials on student politics.

Yesterday’s debate in parliament saw voting split along party lines, with Labour bloc-voting against the scrapping of maintenance grants. Unfortunately, the motion passed. Although on this occasion Labour took the right stance, their reputation when in power is quite different.

Tuition Fees and the Labour Right

Prior to the election of New Labour in 1997, Tony Blair assured the country that “Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education.” In a commons debate on July 23, he reiterated this message:

“Our proposals will be designed to safeguard the position of low-income families… We need a system that is fair, does not involve additional parental contribution, is linked to students’ ability to pay and safeguards the country for the long term. That is what we will provide.”

Notwithstanding these noble claims, a motion to support tuition fees was passed overwhelmingly just six months after Labour’s election. Originally fees were set at £1,000 to be paid by every student for every year of study, but the motion also replaced maintenance grants (set at £1,710) with repayable student loans.

This pattern of betrayal continued in 2001, when Labour was re-elected on a manifesto that, amongst other things, promised to fight against “top-up fees.” The manifesto reads: “We will not introduce ‘top-up’ fees and have legislated to prevent them… We will ensure that the funding system continues to promote access and excellence.”

And yet, on January 24 2004 the vast majority of Labour MPs voted in favour of university tuition fees increasing from £1,125 per year to up to £3,000 per year.

Of those who voted in favour of increasing fees, many remain amongst the Labour ranks today, some with positions in the shadow cabinet (indicated in parenthesis). For example,

Hilary Benn (Shadow Foreign Secretary)

Chris Bryant (Shadow Leader of the House of Commons)

Andy Burnham (Shadow Home Secretary)

Vernon Coaker (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland)

Angela Eagle (Shadow Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills)

Maria Eagle (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport)

John Healey (Shadow Minister for Housing and Planning)

Angela Smith (Shadow Leader of the House of Lords)

Tom Watson (Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office)

Rosie Winterton (Opposition Chief Whip in the House of Commons)

Other notable individuals that voted against the manifesto promises in 2004 are Yvette Cooper, Alistair Darling, Jim Dowd, Harriet Harman, John Mann, and Keith Vaz. The full list can be found here.

Only four ministers from today’s shadow cabinet voted against the raising of tuition fees in 2004: Jeremy Corbyn (Leader of the Opposition), John McDonnell (Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer), Jon Trickett (Shadow Minister for the Constitutional Convention), and Diane Abbott (Shadow Secretary of State for International Development).

This means that of the current shadow cabinet eligible to vote in 2004, 10 out of 14 (71%) voted for increased tuition fees in 2004.1 Given the current make-up of the PLP, it’s difficult to imagine that the story would be different any different if Labour were in power today.

Spinning on to the next seminal moment in the history of tuition fees, on December 9, 2010, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat (Con-Dem) coalition government won the vote to raise the upper limit of tuition fees to £9,000, against a backdrop of massive national demonstrations and police violence. Labour, now safely out of power, bloc-voted against this policy.

Interestingly, the Tories that put this motion on the table were the same Tories that voted against tuition fees in 1997 and 2004. Even more interestingly, many Labour MPs who took a “principled stand” against this deeply unfair policy in fact voted for the increase in 2004.

Recent history has shown conclusively that when locked out of power the Labour Right, and even the Tories, will take a progressive stance on student issues, but when it matters they both vote the same: more tuition fees, more loans, and less grants.

We are presented now with a real opportunity for change. The Tories currently hold the reins of power with a desperately small mandate from just 24% of those eligible to vote. At the same time, the Labour Party has recently elected the most left wing leader in its entire history. The PLP and the local councils, however, do not yet reflect these changes.

If young people are going to throw their lot in with Labour’s Momentum campaign they need to know that their elected representatives have a history of fighting for working class students. Sadly, this is not currently the case, and it is an issue that can only be redressed through the amputation of the Labour Right.

More articles by:

Thomas Barker is an independent journalist and PhD student in Aesthetics and Politics. He can be reached at https://durham.academia.edu/ThomasBarker

Weekend Edition
May 25, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
A Major Win for Trump’s War Cabinet
Andrew Levine
Could Anything Cause the GOP to Dump Trump?
Pete Tucker
Is the Washington Post Soft on Amazon?
Conn Hallinan
Iran: Sanctions & War
Jeffrey St. Clair
Out of Space: John McCain, Telescopes and the Desecration of Mount Graham
John Laforge
Senate Puts CIA Back on Torture Track
David Rosen
Santa Fe High School Shooting: an Incel Killing?
Gary Leupp
Pompeo’s Iran Speech and the 21 Demands
Jonathan Power
Bang, Bang to Trump
Robert Fisk
You Can’t Commit Genocide Without the Help of Local People
Brian Cloughley
Washington’s Provocations in the South China Sea
Louis Proyect
Requiem for a Mountain Lion
Robert Fantina
The U.S. and Israel: a Match Made in Hell
Kevin Martin
The Libya Model: It’s Not Always All About Trump
Susie Day
Trump, the NYPD and the People We Call “Animals”
Pepe Escobar
How Iran Will Respond to Trump
Sarah Anderson
When CEO’s Earn 5,000 Times as Much as a Company’s Workers
Ralph Nader
Audit the Outlaw Military Budget Draining America’s Necessities
Chris Wright
The Significance of Karl Marx
David Schultz
Indict or Not: the Choice Mueller May Have to Make and Which is Worse for Trump
George Payne
The NFL Moves to Silence Voices of Dissent
Razan Azzarkani
America’s Treatment of Palestinians Has Grown Horrendously Cruel
Katalina Khoury
The Need to Evaluate the Human Constructs Enabling Palestinian Genocide
George Ochenski
Tillerson, the Truth and Ryan Zinke’s Interior Department
Jill Richardson
Our Immigration Debate Needs a Lot More Humanity
Martha Rosenberg
Once Again a Slaughterhouse Raid Turns Up Abuses
Judith Deutsch
Pension Systems and the Deadly Hand of the Market
Shamus Cooke
Oregon’s Poor People’s Campaign and DSA Partner Against State Democrats
Thomas Barker
Only a Mass Struggle From Below Can End the Bloodshed in Palestine
Binoy Kampmark
Australia’s China Syndrome
Missy Comley Beattie
Say “I Love You”
Ron Jacobs
A Photographic Revenge
Saurav Sarkar
War and Moral Injury
Clark T. Scott
The Shell Game and “The Bank Dick”
Seth Sandronsky
The State of Worker Safety in America
Thomas Knapp
Making Gridlock Great Again
Manuel E. Yepe
The US Will Have to Ask for Forgive
Laura Finley
Stop Blaming Women and Girls for Men’s Violence Against Them
Rob Okun
Raising Boys to Love and Care, Not to Kill
Christopher Brauchli
What Conflicts of Interest?
Winslow Myers
Real Security
George Wuerthner
Happy Talk About Weeds
Abel Cohen
Give the People What They Want: Shame
Douglas Valentine
Memorial Day
May 24, 2018
Gary Leupp
Art of the Dealbreaker: Trump’s Cancellation of the Summit with Kim
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail