Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Please Support CounterPunch’s Annual Fund Drive
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We only ask you once a year, but when we ask we mean it. So, please, help as much as you can. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. All contributions are tax-deductible.
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

October 16, 2018
Gregory Elich
Diplomatic Deadlock: Can U.S.-North Korea Diplomacy Survive Maximum Pressure?
Rob Seimetz
Talking About Death While In Decadence
Kent Paterson
Fifty Years of Mexican October
Robert Fantina
Trump, Iran and Sanctions
Greg Macdougall
Indigenous Suicide in Canada
Kenneth Surin
On Reading the Diaries of Tony Benn, Britain’s Greatest Labour Politician
Andrew Bacevich
Unsolicited Advice for an Undeclared Presidential Candidate: a Letter to Elizabeth Warren
Thomas Knapp
Facebook Meddles in the 2018 Midterm Elections
Muhammad Othman
Khashoggi and Demetracopoulos
Gerry Brown
Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics: How the US Weaponizes Them to Accuse  China of Debt Trap Diplomacy
Christian Ingo Lenz Dunker – Peter Lehman
The Brazilian Presidential Elections and “The Rules of The Game”
Robert Fisk
What a Forgotten Shipwreck in the Irish Sea Can Tell Us About Brexit
Martin Billheimer
Here Cochise Everywhere
David Swanson
Humanitarian Bombs
Dean Baker
The Federal Reserve is Not a Church
October 15, 2018
Rob Urie
Climate Crisis is Upon Us
Conn Hallinan
Syria’s Chessboard
Patrick Cockburn
The Saudi Atrocities in Yemen are a Worse Story Than the Disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi
Sheldon Richman
Trump’s Middle East Delusions Persist
Justin T. McPhee
Uberrima Fides? Witness K, East Timor and the Economy of Espionage
Tom Gill
Spain’s Left Turn?
Jeff Cohen
Few Democrats Offer Alternatives to War-Weary Voters
Dean Baker
Corporate Debt Scares
Gary Leupp
The Khashoggi Affair and and the Anti-Iran Axis
Russell Mokhiber
Sarah Chayes Calls on West Virginians to Write In No More Manchins
Clark T. Scott
Acclimated Behaviorisms
Kary Love
Evolution of Religion
Colin Todhunter
From GM Potatoes to Glyphosate: Regulatory Delinquency and Toxic Agriculture
Binoy Kampmark
Evacuating Nauru: Médecins Sans Frontières and Australia’s Refugee Dilemma
Marvin Kitman
The Kitman Plan for Peace in the Middle East: Two Proposals
Weekend Edition
October 12, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Becky Grant
My History with Alexander Cockburn and The Financial Future of CounterPunch
Paul Street
For Popular Sovereignty, Beyond Absurdity
Nick Pemberton
The Colonial Pantsuit: What We Didn’t Want to Know About Africa
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Summer of No Return
Jeff Halper
Choices Made: From Zionist Settler Colonialism to Decolonization
Gary Leupp
The Khashoggi Incident: Trump’s Special Relationship With the Saudi Monarchy
Andrew Levine
Democrats: Boost, Knock, Enthuse
Barbara Kantz
The Deportation Crisis: Report From Long Island
Doug Johnson
Nate Silver and 538’s Measurable 3.5% Democratic Bias and the 2018 House Race
Gwen Carr
This Stops Today: Seeking Justice for My Son Eric Garner
Robert Hunziker
Peak Carbon Emissions By 2020, or Else!
Arshad Khan
Is There Hope on a World Warming at 1.5 Degrees Celsius?
David Rosen
Packing the Supreme Court in the 21stCentury
Brian Cloughley
Trump’s Threats of Death and Destruction
Joel A. Harrison
The Case for a Non-Profit Single-Payer Healthcare System
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail